View source for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

{{Short description|Unused deep geological repository facility in Nevada, US}}
{{Use American English|date = November 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2019}}

{{multiple image
 |direction = vertical
 |align = right
 |width = 350
 |image1=Yucca Mountain 2.jpg
 |image2=Yucca proposed design.jpg
 |caption1= Yucca Mountain
 |caption2=The proposed design<ref name="2008news">{{cite news|title=Nuclear waste repository safe for future generations |url=http://www.lanl.gov/1663/yucca_mountain_complies_with_epa_regulations_for_safety_and_risk |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090506090127/http://www.lanl.gov/1663/yucca_mountain_complies_with_epa_regulations_for_safety_and_risk |archive-date=May 6, 2009 |access-date=June 2, 2019 |newspaper=1663 LANL Sci/Tech Magazine |date=December 2008}}</ref>
}}

The '''Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository''', as designated by the [[Nuclear Waste Policy Act]] amendments of 1987,<ref name=usa /> is a proposed [[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 on federal land adjacent to the [[Nevada Test Site]] in [[Nye County, Nevada]], about {{convert|80|mi|abbr=on}} northwest of the [[Las Vegas Valley]].

The project was approved in 2002 by the [[107th United States Congress]], but the [[112th United States Congress|112th Congress]] ended federal funding for the site via amendment to the [[continuing resolution|Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act]], passed on April 14, 2011, during the [[Obama administration]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ10/PLAW-112publ10.pdf |title=Publication |publisher=www.congress.gov |date= |access-date=2021-09-10}}</ref> The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the public, the [[Western Shoshone]] peoples, and many politicians.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ryan |first=Cy |date=2012-03-16 |title=Nye County, Sandoval clash over future of Yucca – Las Vegas Sun Newspaper |url=https://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/16/nye-county-sandoval-clash-over-future-yucca/ |access-date=2020-02-19 |website=lasvegassun.com |language=en-us}}</ref> The project also faces strong state and regional opposition.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/yucca-mountain-opposition-to-be-focus-at-las-vegas-conference/ |title=Yucca Mountain opposition to be focus at Las Vegas conference|date=2017-09-05|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal|language=en-US|access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> The [[Government Accountability Office]] stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.<ref name="GAO">{{cite news|title=GAO: Death of Yucca Mountain Caused by Political Maneuvering |url=https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all|newspaper=The New York Times|date=May 9, 2011}}</ref>

This leaves the United States government (which disposes of its [[Transuranium element|transuranic]] waste from nuclear weapons production {{convert|2150|ft|m}} below the surface at the [[Waste Isolation Pilot Plant]] in New Mexico)<ref>{{cite web |title=Archived copy |url=http://www.wipp.energy.gov/fctshts/Why_WIPP.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930145651/http://www.wipp.energy.gov/fctshts/Why_WIPP.pdf |archive-date=September 30, 2011 |access-date=2011-11-16 |website=wipp.energy.gov}}</ref> and American [[Nuclear power in the United States|nuclear power plants]] without any designated long-term storage for their high-level radioactive waste (spent fuel) stored on-site in steel and concrete casks ([[dry cask storage]]) at 76 reactor sites in 34 states.<ref name=Guard_2021-08-24 >{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/24/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant-radioactive-waste-unsafe | title='A combination of failures:' why 3.6m pounds of nuclear waste is buried on a popular California beach |last=Mishkin |first=Kate |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=2021-08-24 |quote=Under the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the federal government was to move waste into a centralized, remote federal facility starting in 1998. In 2002, George W Bush approved Yucca Mountain, a site about 100 miles from Las Vegas, as a permanent underground nuclear waste repository. But in 2010, the Obama administration scrapped the controversial plan. ... Spent fuel is stored at 76 reactor sites in 34 states, according to the Department of Energy.}}</ref><ref name=DOE_FF-SNF >{{cite web |url=https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel |title=5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel |work=[[United States Department of Energy]] |date=2020-03-30}}</ref><ref name=WSJ_2021-05-14 >{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/escape-from-yucca-mountain-biden-administration-promises-progress-on-nuclear-waste-11620984602 |title=Escape From Yucca Mountain: Biden Administration Promises Progress on Nuclear Waste |last=Rubin |first=Gabriel |newspaper=[[Wall Street Journal]] |date=2021-05-14 |quote=The only federally designated long-term disposal site for waste from the nuclear power industry is at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (there is also a site near Carlsbad, N.M., for waste generated by the government’s nuclear weapons program).}}</ref><ref name="nrc.gov">{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html |title=NRC: Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations |date=October 15, 2009 |publisher=[[U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] |access-date=2010-07-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527192312/http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html |archive-date=May 27, 2010}}</ref>

Under President [[Barack Obama]], the U.S. [[United States Department of Energy|Department of Energy]] (DOE) reviewed options other than Yucca Mountain for a [[High-level radioactive waste management|high-level waste repository]]. The [[Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future]], established by the [[United States Secretary of Energy|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 (government)|Cabinet]]-level DOE is.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Hamilton |first=Lee H. |last2=Scowcroft |first2=Brent |date=January 2012 |title=Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future Final Report |url=http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120807061024/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf |archive-date=August 7, 2012 |access-date=2012-10-25}}</ref> But the site met with strong opposition in Nevada, including from then-Senate leader [[Harry Reid]].<ref name=usa />

Under President [[Donald Trump]], the DOE ceased deep borehole<ref>{{cite web|url=https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/dept-of-energy-stops-work-on-deep-borehole-field-test-program|title=Dept. of Energy stops work on Deep Borehole Field Test program |last=Lester |first=Tiffany |date=2017-05-23|website=KVII|access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> and other non-Yucca Mountain waste disposition research activities. For [[Fiscal year|FY]]18, the DOE requested $120 million and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) $30 million<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nuclear-agency-seeks-30m-for-yucca-mountain-licensing-review/ |title=Nuclear agency seeks $30M for Yucca Mountain licensing review|date=2017-06-07|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal|language=en-US |access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> from Congress to continue licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain Repository. For fiscal year 2019, the DOE again requested $120 million while the NRC increased its request to $47.7 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.exchangemonitor.com/190982-2/?printmode=1 |title=NRC Aims For Budget Bump for FY19 - ExchangeMonitor {{!}} Page 1 |date=2018-02-13 |website=ExchangeMonitor |language=en-US |access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> Congress provided no funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/congress-poised-to-skip-funding-yucca-nuke-dump-again-this-year |title=Congress Poised to Skip Funding Yucca Nuke Dump Again This Year |last=Natter |first=Ari |date=March 6, 2018 |website=www.bloomberg.com |access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> In May 2019, Representative [[John Shimkus]] reintroduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives for the site,<ref name=usa /> but the Appropriation Committee killed an amendment by Representative [[Mike Simpson]] to add $74 million in Yucca Mountain funding to a DOE appropriations bill.<ref name=usa/> On May 20, 2020, Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes testified in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that President Trump strongly opposes proceeding with the Yucca Mountain Repository.<ref>{{cite web |date=May 20, 2020 |title=Energy Department nominee shifts on Yucca Mountain question |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/energy-department-nominee-shifts-on-yucca-mountain-question-2032528/ |website=reviewjournal.com}}</ref>

In May 2021, Energy Secretary [[Jennifer Granholm]] said that Yucca Mountain would not be part of the Biden administration's plans for nuclear-waste disposal. She anticipated announcing the department's next steps "in the coming months".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/escape-from-yucca-mountain-biden-administration-promises-progress-on-nuclear-waste-11620984602 |title=Escape From Yucca Mountain: Biden Administration Promises Progress on Nuclear Waste|first=Gabriel T.|last=Rubin|newspaper=Wall Street Journal |date=May 14, 2021|via=www.wsj.com}}</ref>

== Introduction ==
[[File:Yucca Mountain - Nuclear Waste Repository.jpg|thumb|upright=3.2|An [[infographic]] about the [[Yucca Mountain]] nuclear waste repository]]
[[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 of [[nuclear reprocessing|reprocessing]] spent fuel to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.<ref>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080614182338/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml |archive-date=June 14, 2008 |title=What are spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste? |date=July 2007 |publisher=Office of Civilian Radioactive (OCRWM), U.S. Department of Energy |access-date=August 26, 2008 |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0338.shtml}}</ref> In 1982, 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]],<ref>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080514020437/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/css/nwpa.htm |archive-date=May 14, 2008 |title=Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended |date=March 2004 |publisher=Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), U.S. Department of Energy |access-date=May 16, 2008 |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/nwpa/css/nwpa.htm}}</ref> which made the [[United States Department of Energy|U.S. Department of Energy]] (DOE) responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility called a [[Deep geological repository|geologic repository]]. The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates to 1957, when the [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] recommended that the best way to protect the environment and public health and safety is to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.<ref>Culler, Floyd L. 1957. ''Status report on the disposal of radioactive wastes''. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.</ref>{{page needed|date=December 2014}}

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 {{convert|70000|MT}} (150 million pounds)<ref>"Faff and Fallout." ''The Economist'' August 1, 2015: 23. Print.</ref> of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste as of 2015{{when|date=December 2014}} stored at 121 sites around the nation. An estimated {{convert|10000|MT}} of the waste would be from U.S. military nuclear programs.<ref name="Michael J. Kolar">{{cite news |author=Kolar |first=Michael J. |date=August 15, 2001 |title=Midweek Perspectives: Waste that won't go away |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20010815kol0815enp5.asp |newspaper=[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]}}</ref>

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, [[Ronald Reagan|President Ronald Reagan]] approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were [[Hanford Site|Hanford, Washington]]; [[Deaf Smith County, Texas]]; and Yucca Mountain.<ref name="Michael J. Kolar"/>

In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is adjacent to the former nuclear test site. The Act provided that if during site characterization Yucca Mountain was found unsuitable, studies would stop immediately. This option expired when Reagan actually recommended the site. On July 23, 2002, President [[George W. Bush]] signed House Joint Resolution 87<ref>{{cite web
 | url= https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020723-2.html
 | title= President Signs Yucca Mountain Bill
 | date= July 23, 2002 | publisher= Office of the Press Secretary, White House
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref> ({{USPL|107|200}}), allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store 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 pressure 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, Bush nominated Ward (Edward) Sproat, a nuclear industry executive formerly of PECO energy in Pennsylvania, to lead the Yucca Mountain Project. Following the 2006 midterm congressional elections, [[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 said 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."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/index.shtml
 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080508014559/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/index.shtml |archive-date=May 8, 2008 | title= Analysis: Reid's Yucca and nuke waste plan
 | last= Lando | first= Ben | date= December 4, 2006 | publisher= United Press International
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref>

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, [[Barack Obama]] promised to abandon the project.<ref>{{cite journal
 | title= US election: Questioning the candidates
 | date= September 24, 2008 |journal= [[Nature (journal)|Nature]]
 | doi= 10.1038/455446a
 | last1= Witze
 | first1= Alexandra
 | volume= 455
 | issue= 7212
 | pages= 446–449
 | pmid= 18818624
 | s2cid= 205041295
 | doi-access= free
 }}</ref> After his election, the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]] told Obama he did not have the ability to do so.<ref name=Shuler>{{cite news|url=http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100709/NEWS/307090036/Shuler-Nuclear-waste-is-not-headed-to-WNC|title=Shuler: Nuclear waste is not headed to Asheville area|last=Ostendorff|first=Jon|work=[[Asheville Citizen-Times]]|date=July 9, 2010|access-date=2010-07-09}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> On April 23, 2009, [[Lindsey Graham]] and eight other U.S. 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 Congress canceled the project.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bill to liquidate the Nuclear Waste Fund |publisher=World Nuclear News |date= April 27, 2009| url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR_Bill_to_liquidate_the_nuclear_waste_fund_2704092.html |access-date=2010-06-09}}</ref>

In November 2013, in response to a lawsuit filed by the [[National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners]] and the [[Nuclear Energy Institute]], the [[United States courts of appeals|U.S. 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.<ref>{{cite news |title=Court orders halt to nuclear waste fees|publisher= World Nuclear News |date=November 20, 2013| url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Court-orders-halt-to-nuclear-waste-fees-2011134.html | access-date=2013-11-20}}</ref> 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.{{citation needed|date=April 2021}} For the ten years after 2015, it is estimated to cost taxpayers $24 billion in payments from the Judgment Fund.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/how-the-department-of-energy-became-a-major-taxpayer-liability.html |title=How the Department of Energy became a major taxpayer liability |last=Fahey |first=Mark |date=2016-07-06 |website=www.cnbc.com |access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref> 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.

== Facility ==
[[File:Tour group entering North Portal of Yucca Mountain.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|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 [[The Shaw Group|Shaw Corporation]] (now part of McDermott International Inc.) and [[Areva]] Federal Services LLC (now Orano federal services business).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-awards-contract-usa-repository-services-management-and-operating|title=U.S. Department of Energy Awards a Contract to USA Repository Services for Management and Operating Contractor Support for the Yucca Mountain Project|website=Energy.gov|language=en|access-date=2020-02-19}}</ref>

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 fiscal year 2010<ref>{{cite web |title=Little hope, help for displaced DOE contract workers |url=https://www.eenews.net/stories/94642 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170825105001/https://www.eenews.net/stories/94642 |archive-date=2017-08-25 |access-date=2023-08-07 |website=eenews.net}}</ref> due to zero funding in the 2011 budget for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.<ref>{{cite web |title=United States Government – Department of Energy – Memorandum |url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/OAS-FS-11-03.pdf |website=energy.gov |pages=5}}</ref> [[Sandia National Laboratories]] was responsible for post-closure analysis and ensuring compliance with the NWPA. The main tunnel of the Exploratory Studies Facility is U-shaped, {{convert|5|mi|abbr=on}} long and {{convert|25|ft|abbr=on}} wide.<ref name="10 CFR 63">[http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cfr/cfr2002026&div=10&collection=cfr&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults&terms=63.&type=matchall 10&nbsp;CFR&nbsp;63].</ref>

There are also several cathedral-like alcoves that branch from the main tunnel. Most of the scientific experiments were conducted in these alcoves. The emplacement drifts (smaller-diameter tunnels branching off the main tunnel) where waste would have been stored were not constructed since they required authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.<ref name="10 CFR 63"/> The repository has a statutory limit of {{convert|77000|MT|ST}}.<ref>{{cite news |author=Neff |first=Erin |date=April 16, 2006 |title=Erin Neff: The arbitrary science of Yucca Mountain |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-16-Sun-2006/opinion/6858785.html |newspaper=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]}}</ref>

To store that much waste would have required {{convert|40|mi|km}} of tunnels.<ref name="2008news"/> The Nuclear Waste Policy Act further limits the capacity of the repository to {{convert|63000|MT}} of initial heavy metal in commercial spent fuel. The 104 U.S. commercial reactors then operating were expected to produce this quantity of spent fuel by 2014,<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument 
 |title=Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository? 
 |last=Peterson 
 |first=Per F. 
 |volume=33 
 |issue=3 
 |date=Fall 2003 
 |publisher=[[United States National Academy of Engineering]] 
 |access-date=2008-05-16 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080321033140/http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5S3Q6M?OpenDocument 
 |archive-date=March 21, 2008 
}}</ref> assuming that the spent fuel rods are not reprocessed. Currently, the US has no civil reprocessing plant.

{{update|section|date=February 2017}}

[[File:Yucca Mountain TBM.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|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;<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/yucca-lic-app/references.html |date=2012-03-29 |title=References cited by U.S. Department of Energy for Yucca Mountain License Application |publisher=United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission |access-date=2014-03-07}}</ref> between geologic studies and materials science,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/235546.pdf |date=1997-04-01 |last=McCright |first=R. Daniel |title=Engineered Materials Characterization Report for the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project: Volume 3 Revision 1 |publisher=Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory |access-date=2014-03-07}}</ref> the United States had invested $9 billion in the project.<ref>{{cite web |title=Who pays for Yucca Mountain? |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml#4 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080822205714/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml |archive-date=August 22, 2008 |access-date=2008-05-16 |publisher=Yucca Mountain Repository, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> This site studied by the [[Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology]] (NBMG) differs substantially from other potential repositories because of its natural analogues of nuclear material, which are being studied.<ref>{{citation |title=Volcanic Rock Hosted Deposits in Northern Nevada |last=Castor |first=Stephen |year=1996 |publisher=University of Nevada Reno |citeseerx=10.1.1.214.2835}}</ref> The DOE estimates that it has over 100 million gallons of highly radioactive waste and {{convert|2500|MT|ST}} of spent fuel from the production of nuclear weapons and from research activities in temporary storage.<ref>{{cite web
 | url= http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02191.pdf
 | title= Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project
 |date=December 2001 |publisher=[[United States General Accounting Office]]
 | access-date=May 16, 2008}}</ref>

The facility's cost is being paid for by a combination of a tax on each kilowatt hour of nuclear power and by taxpayers for disposal of weapons and naval nuclear waste. Based on the 2001 cost estimate, about 73% is funded by consumers of nuclear-powered electricity and 27% by taxpayers.<ref>
{{cite web
 |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/pdf/tslccr1.pdf
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529181937/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/pdf/tslccr1.pdf
 |archive-date=2008-05-29 |title=Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program
 |date=May 2001
 |publisher=OCRWM, DoE
 |access-date=2008-05-16
}}
</ref>

The Total System Life Cycle Cost Director Sproat presented to Congress on July 15, 2008, 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 {{convert|135000|MT|ST}}, or 300 million pounds.<ref>{{cite news
 | url= http://www.lvrj.com/news/10257277.html
 | title= Agency studies nearly doubling nuclear waste capacity
 | last= Tetreault | first= Steve
 | date= October 5, 2007 | newspaper= [[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref>

The [[tunnel boring machine]] (TBM) that excavated the main tunnel cost $13 million and was {{convert|400|ft|abbr=on}} long 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.<ref>{{cite news |author=Grove |first=Benjamin |date=March 6, 2006 |title=Getting to the bottom of Yucca Mountain |url=http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2006/mar/06/getting-to-the-bottom-of-yucca-mountain/ |newspaper=[[Las Vegas Sun]]}}</ref>

== Opposition ==
[[File:Wfm area51 map en.png|thumb|upright=3|A map showing Yucca Mountain in southern [[Nevada]], west of the [[Nevada Test Site]]]]

The DOE was scheduled to begin accepting spent fuel at the Yucca Mountain repository by {{Start date and age|1998|01|31|p=yes}}. By 2010, years after this deadline, the future status of the repository at Yucca Mountain was still unknown due to ongoing litigation, and opposition by Senator Reid.<ref name="2010funding">{{cite web|url=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2009/2009-05-08-092.asp |title=FY2010 Energy Budget Shuts Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump|date=May 8, 2009|publisher=Environment News Service|access-date=June 9, 2010}}</ref>

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.<ref name="nrc.gov"/>

The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. A two-thirds majority of Nevadans believe it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada.<ref name="United States Congress">{{cite web
 |url        = http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=026492169849+0+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
 |title      = Congressional Record – House, March 8, 2007, page H2332
 |publisher  = United States Congress
 |access-date = October 26, 2008
}}{{Dead link|date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> 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.<ref name="United States Congress" /> The county containing the proposed facility, Nye County, supports the repository's development, as do six adjoining counties.<ref name="LVRJ1214">{{cite news |author1=Tetreault |first=Steve |date=March 9, 2012 |title=Nye officials give consent to burying nuke waste |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/yucca-mountain/nye-officials-give-consent-burying-nuke-waste |access-date=December 22, 2014 |work=Las Vegas Review-Journal |publisher=Stephens Media LLC}}</ref> A 2015 survey of Nevadans found 55% agreeing that the state should be open to discussion of what benefits could be received.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.muthstruths.com/new-yucca-mountain-poll-shows-dramatic-shift-in-public-opinion/|title=New Yucca Mountain Poll shows Dramatic Shift in Public Opinion – MUTH'S TRUTHS|website=www.muthstruths.com}}</ref>

One point of concern has been the standard of radiation emission in 10,000 to 1,000,000 years. On August 9, 2005, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) proposed a limit of 350 millirem per year for that period.<ref>{{cite web
 | url= http://www.ieer.org/latest/yuccaepapr0805.html
 | title= Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rule on Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste Would Seriously Undermine Public Health
 |date= August 9, 2005 |publisher= Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref> In October 2007, the DOE issued a draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement showing that for the first 10,000 years, mean public [[Absorbed dose|dose]] would be 0.24 mrem/year and that thereafter 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Dose |url=http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/white_paper_dose.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120305204743/http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/white_paper_dose.aspx |archive-date=March 5, 2012 |access-date=2012-12-05 |website=acr.org}}</ref> Annually, in the United States, an individual's dose from background radiation is about 350 mrem, though some places get more than twice that.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hps.org/ |title=hps.org |first=Fred |last=Baes |website=Health Physics Society}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080105022343/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/index.shtml |archive-date=January 5, 2008 |title=Draft Supplemental Yucca Mountain Repository EIS |date=January 2008 |format= links to [[PDF]]s |publisher=U.S. DOE |access-date=May 16, 2008 |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/index.shtml}}</ref>

On February 12, 2002, Secretary of Energy [[Spencer Abraham]] deemed this site suitable as the nation's nuclear repository.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statutory Materials Supporting the Recommendation |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/sr/statutory.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080126070604/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/sr/statutory.shtml |archive-date=January 26, 2008 |access-date=May 16, 2008 |publisher=Yucca Mountain Repository, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> The governor of Nevada had 90 days to object and did so, but 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 [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|election]] issue when U.S. Senator [[John Kerry]] said he would abandon the plans if elected.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Brumfiel |first=Geoff |date=2004-08-01 |title=Kerry pledges to axe Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste dump |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=430 |issue=7002 |pages=820 |doi=10.1038/430820a |pmid=15318184 |bibcode=2004Natur.430..820B |s2cid=4330590 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free}}</ref>

In March 2005, the U.S. [[United States Department of Energy|Energy]] and [[United States Department of the Interior|Interior]] departments revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey [[hydrology|hydrologists]] had exchanged emails discussing possible falsification of [[quality assurance]] documents on [[infiltration (hydrology)|water infiltration]] research.<ref name="epw.senate.gov">{{cite web
 | url= http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf
 | title= Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet
 |date=March 2006 | publisher= [[U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works]]
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=August 2017}} 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 [[United States Geological Survey|U.S. Geological Survey]] (USGS) employees.<ref name="epw.senate.gov" /> 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:<ref name="epw.senate.gov" />

* 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]]."<ref>{{cite web |date=January 18, 2006 |title=OCRWM Selects Sandia as Lead Laboratory |url=http://energy.gov/news/3005.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070715120745/http://energy.gov/news/3005.htm |archive-date=July 15, 2007 |access-date=May 16, 2008 |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> Sandia began acting as the lead laboratory on October 1, 2006.

Because of questions raised by the State of Nevada<ref>{{cite web
 | url= http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2003/pdf/nv_wwrong.pdf
 | title= What's Wrong With Putting Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?
 | year= 2003 | publisher= The Agency for Nuclear Projects, State of Nevada
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref> and congressional members about the quality of the science behind the Yucca Mountain Project, 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.<ref>{{cite web |date=March 31, 2006 |title=DOE Awards $3 Million Contract to Oak Ridge Associated Universities for Expert Review of Yucca Mountain Work |url=http://energy.gov/news/3418.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070715105940/http://energy.gov/news/3418.htm |archive-date=July 15, 2007 |access-date=May 16, 2008 |publisher=U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref> DOE stated that the 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."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://energy.gov/news/archives/3418.htm <!--Added by H3llBot--> |title=DOE Awards $3 Million Contract to Oak Ridge Associated Universities for Expert Review of Yucca Mountain Work |date=March 31, 2006 |publisher=United States Department of Energy |access-date=2010-07-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527154700/http://energy.gov/news/archives/3418.htm |archive-date=May 27, 2010 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

There was significant public and political opposition to the project in Nevada. An attempt was made to push ahead with it and override the opposition. But for large projects that would take decades to complete, there is every chance that sustained local opposition will prevail, and this happened with the Yucca Mountain project.<ref name=sc/> 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".<ref name=sc>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.</ref>

On March 5, 2009, U.S. Energy Secretary [[Steven Chu]] reiterated in a Senate hearing that the [[Yucca Mountain]] site was no longer considered an option for storing reactor waste.<ref>Hebert, H. Josef. 2009. "[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story Nuclear waste won't be going to Nevada's Yucca Mountain, Obama official says] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110324074934/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story |date=March 24, 2011}}." ''Chicago Tribune''. March 6, 2009, 4. Accessed 3-6-09.</ref>

On March 3, 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw its license application,<ref name="DOEhalt">{{cite news |url=http://www.lvrj.com/news/nuclear-waste-blue-ribbon-panel-to-start-work-86253967.html|title=DOE asks to halt Yucca Mountain |last=Tetreault|first=Steve|date=March 3, 2010|newspaper=Las Vegas Review-Journal|access-date=June 9, 2010}}</ref> but multiple lawsuits to stop this action have been filed by states, counties, and individuals across the country as being unauthorized by the NWPA.<ref>
{{cite news |title=Washington Files New Yucca Lawsuit |author=Cary, Annette |url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/07/30/1585613/washington-files-new-yucca-lawsuit.html |newspaper=Tri-City Herald |date=November 7, 2011 |access-date=September 3, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=In re: Aiken County, S.C., No. n/a (D.D.C. filed 7/29/11) |url=http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0261000/261393/Petition.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316212021/http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0261000/261393/Petition.pdf |archive-date=March 16, 2012 |website=Law 360}}</ref>

The costly nuclear accident in 2014 at the New Mexico [[Waste Isolation Pilot Plant]] in which a nuclear waste container exploded has caused doubt that it could serve as an alternative for Yucca Mountain.<ref>Jeff Tollefson (March 4, 2014). "US seeks waste-research revival: Radioactive leak brings nuclear repositories into the spotlight", [http://www.nature.com/news/us-seeks-waste-research-revival-1.14804 Nature website]. Retrieved January 26, 2017.</ref><ref>Vartabedian, Ralph. (August 22, 2016). "Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history" Los Angeles Times. [https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html LA Times website] Retrieved January 26, 2017.</ref>

In January 2019, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak vowed that "not one ounce" of nuclear waste would be allowed at Yucca Mountain, and a May funding bill did not include funding for the site.<ref name=usa/> In May 2019, the Reno Gazette-Journal published a long-form essay cataloging opposition to the Yucca Mountain project. According to a tribal elder, the [[Western Shoshone]] view Yucca Mountain as sacred and believe a nuclear storage facility "will poison everything. It's people's life, our Mother Earth's life, all the living things here, all the creatures; whatever's crawling around, it's their life too." The tribes say they lack funds to discredit federal safety claims, but will be directly affected by a potential disaster.<ref name=usa>{{cite news |last=Komenda |first=Ed |date=May 22, 2019 |title='It will poison everything.' Native Americans protest Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste site: TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE NATION, THIS LAND IS SACRED. TO STORE NUCLEAR WASTE HERE IS TO PRESS A DOOMSDAY BUTTON |url=https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2019/05/22/yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-nevada-test-site/3694806002/ |work=Reno Gazette-Journal |location=[[Yucca Mountain]] |access-date=May 26, 2019}}</ref>

== Radiation standards ==
[[File:Yucca Mountain tunnel.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|A tunnel inside the Exploratory Studies Facility.]]

=== Original standard ===
The EPA established its Yucca Mountain standards in June 2001.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625143023/http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/yucca/402-f-05-026.pdf
|archive-date=June 25, 2008 |title=EPA's Proposed Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain |date=October 2005 |publisher=[[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] |access-date=May 16, 2008}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Wehrum">{{cite web |url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=da19acbe-802a-23ad-4357-2f58816a73f0&Witness_ID=58979654-be03-4f7f-9bde-04967db10644|title=Full Committee Oversight Hearing on the Status of the Yucca Mountain Project |first=William |last=Wehrum |date=March 1, 2006 |publisher=U.S. Senate committee on Environmental and Public Works |access-date=2010-07-14}}</ref>

The groundwater protection standard is consistent with the EPA [[Safe Drinking Water Act]] standards, which the Agency applies in many situations as a [[Water Pollution|pollution prevention]] measure. The disposal standards were to apply for 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.<ref name="Wehrum"/>

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.<ref name="Wehrum"/>

=== Inconsistent standards ===
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 EPA 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 [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] (NAS) recommendations and was too short.<ref>Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. ''Nuclear waste stalemate''. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 111, 190–191.</ref><ref>Nuclear Energy Institute v. EPA, 373 ''F.3d'' 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf UScourts.gov]</ref>

The NAS report had recommended standards be set for the time of peak risk, which might approach a period of one million years.<ref>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.</ref> By limiting the compliance time to 10,000 years, EPA did not respect a statutory requirement that it develop standards consistent with NAS recommendations.<ref>Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. ''Nuclear waste stalemate''. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, p. 111.</ref>

=== EPA's rule ===
The EPA published in the U.S. Federal Register a final rule in 2009. The 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 DOE 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 for 1,000,000 years.<ref>{{cite news |last=Ialenti |first=Vincent |year=2014 |title=Adjudicating Deep Time: Revisiting the United States' High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Project at Yucca Mountain |url=https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/55323 |access-date=2023-08-07 |publisher=Science & Technology Studies |issue=27(2)}}</ref>

== Geology ==
{{Main|Yucca Mountain}}
[[File:YuccaMountain6-7-2005.JPG|thumb|upright=1.4|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 surrounding the burial sites is expected to protect human health as it provides a natural barrier to the radiation.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1349.html |title=Yucca Mountain |date=April 8, 2008 |publisher=The Environmental Literacy Council |access-date=2010-06-09 |quote=''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.''}}</ref> It lies along the transition between the [[Mojave Desert|Mojave]] and the [[Great Basin Desert]]s.<ref>{{cite book |title=Ground water at Yucca Mountain: how high can it rise? |year=1992 |publisher=National Academy Press |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=0-309-07669-2 |page=191}}</ref>

The volcanic [[tuff]] at Yucca Mountain is appreciably fractured and movement of water through an aquifer below the waste repository is primarily through fractures.<ref>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. {{cite web|url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/ser_b/index.htm |title=Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report Technical Information Supporting Site Recommendation Consideration Revision 1 |access-date=2011-03-24 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090515005004/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/ser_b/index.htm |archive-date=May 15, 2009}}</ref> 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 {{convert|600|to|1500|ft|abbr=on}} below the surface.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cyberwest.com/cw14/14scwst2.html |title=Earthquake could cause flooding of Yucca Mountain repository |date=September 2, 1997 |work= Cyberwest Magazine |access-date=2010-06-02}}</ref> 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 {{convert|700|ft|abbr=on}} of overburden to the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain in less than 50 years.<ref>Vandenbosch, Robert, and Susanne E. Vandenbosch. 2007. ''Nuclear waste stalemate''. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 12, pp. 106–107.</ref><ref>Norris, A. E., H. W. Bentley, S. Cheng, P. W. Kubik, P. Sharma, and H. E. Gove. 1990. "<sup>36</sup>Cl studies of water movements deep within unsaturated tuffs," ''Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B'' 52 (December 2, 1990): 455–460.</ref>

The aquifer of Yucca Mountain drains to [[Amargosa Valley]], home to over 1400 people and a number of endangered species.<ref name=usa />

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.<ref name=Summary>{{cite web |url=http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/ymsum01.htm |title=Summary of Yucca Mountain Oversight and Impact Assessment Findings |access-date=2008-05-16 |publisher=State of Nevada |year=1997}}</ref> 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===
The DOE has stated that seismic and [[tectonics|tectonic]] effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect [[Seismic performance|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 [[Earthquake engineering|substantial protection]] of the waste from seepage water, even under severe [[seismic loading]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/43222_tbd/index.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080126070554/http://ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/43222_tbd/index.htm |archive-date=January 26, 2008 |title=Technical Basis Document No. 14: Low Probability Seismic Events |publisher=[[U.S. Department of Energy]]|work=[[Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management]] |date=June 2004 |access-date=2010-03-27}}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite news |date=September 25, 2007 |title=Yucca Mt. adjusts to fault line |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-sep-25-na-yucca25-story.html |access-date=2010-03-27 |work=Los Angeles Times |location=Los Angeles, California}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Attewill |first=Fred |date=September 25, 2007 |title=US nuclear dump plan in danger after seismic shock |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/25/usa |access-date=2010-03-27 |work=The Guardian |location=London, England}}</ref>

In June 2008, a major nuclear equipment supplier, [[Holtec International]], criticized the DOE's safety plan for handling containers of radioactive waste before they are buried at the proposed Yucca Mountain Project. 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 [[juggernaut]]s".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-yucca6-2008jun06,0,5309730.story |title=Yucca Mountain safety plan is 'doomed,' nuclear company says |work=Los Angeles Times |date=June 6, 2008 |access-date=2010-03-27 |first=Ralph |last=Vartabedian}}</ref>

== Transportation of waste ==
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 cask]]s, approved by the U.S. 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.<ref name=ocrwm1>{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625143024/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/transport/pdf/snf_transfaqs.pdf |archive-date=June 25, 2008 |title=Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste to Yucca Mountain: Frequently Asked Questions |date=January 2006 |publisher=OCRWM, DOE |page=5 |access-date=May 16, 2008 |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/transport/pdf/snf_transfaqs.pdf}}</ref>

=== Nevada routes ===
[[File:Caliente Corridor.jpg|thumb|upright=3|The 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|Caliente]], Nevada, traveling along the northern and western borders of the Nevada Test Site for approximately {{convert|200|mi}}. It then turns south.<ref>{{cite web
 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070216221527/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/transport/eis.shtml |archive-date=February 16, 2007
 | title= Environmental Impact Statement for the Alignment of a Rail Line in the Caliente Corridor
 | publisher= OCRWM, DoE
 | access-date= May 16, 2008 | url= http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/transport/eis.shtml}}</ref>

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, Nevada|Wabuska]]. The proposed corridor would have proceeded southeast through [[Hawthorne, Nevada|Hawthorne]], [[Nevada State Route 265|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 DOE would have required permission from the Walker River Paiute Tribe in order to cross their land. As the first {{convert|54|mi}} of the proposed corridor was owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), additional permission from the DoD would have to be granted.<ref>MinaFeasabilityStudyRev01_26OCT06_alt1.pdf.</ref>

The Nevada Center for Biological Diversity and the Nevada Attorney General have expressed concern about the transportation routes, "through any number of sensitive habitats."<ref name=usa />

=== Impacts ===
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.<ref name=ocrwm1/>

But 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, a transportation adviser to the state of Nevada since 1988, said of 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) said, "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."<ref>{{cite web
 | url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yucca-mountain-23-10-2003/
 | title= Yucca Mountain: Transporting Nuclear Waste May Put Millions At Risk
 | date= July 25, 2004 |work=[[CBS News]]
 | access-date= May 16, 2008}}</ref>

In October 2018, a state senator from Utah argued that transferring nuclear waste from other states to Yucca Mountain on state highways and railways could be a health hazard.<ref name="Judy Fahys for KUER, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.kuer.org/post/utah-legislator-wants-colleagues-support-opposing-yucca-mountain-repository#stream/0
 |title=Utah Legislator Wants Colleagues' Support Opposing Yucca Mountain Repository
 |last=Fahys
 |first=Judy
 |date=October 23, 2018
 |website=kuer.org
 |publisher=[[KUER]]
 |access-date= May 13, 2019
 }}</ref>

== Cultural impact ==
Archaeological surveys have found evidence that Native Americans used the immediate vicinity of Yucca Mountain on a temporary or seasonal basis.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Native American cultural resource studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada |first1=Richard W. |last1=Stoffle |first2=David B. |last2=Halmo |first3=John E. |last3=Olmsted |first4=Michael J. |last4=Evans |date=February 1990 |publisher=Institute for Social Research |page=29 |isbn=978-0879443283}}</ref> 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.<ref>
{{cite web |date=February 2002 |title=Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain |url=http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/feis_2/vol_1/ch_03/index1_3.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080126070559/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/feis_2/vol_1/ch_03/index1_3.htm |archive-date=January 26, 2008 |access-date=2008-05-16 |publisher=Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy}}</ref>

Yucca Mountain and surrounding lands were central in the lives of the [[Southern Paiute]], [[Shoshone|Western Shoshone]], and Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone peoples, who shared them for religious ceremonies, resource uses, and social events.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/kendziuk.html |title=Environmental Justice Case Study: The Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository and the Western Shoshone |access-date=2010-07-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Fowler |first=Catherine S. |author2=Hamby |first2=Maribeth |author3=Rusco |first3=Elmer |author4=Rusco |first4=Mary |date=October 1991 |title=Native Americans and Yucca Mountain |url=http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/library/se-039-91v1.pdf |access-date=2010-07-08 |work=Cultural Resource Consultants, Limited}}</ref>

==Delays since 2009==
Starting in 2009, the [[Obama administration]] attempted to close the Yucca Mountain repository, despite US law that designates Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. The administration agency, [[United States Department of Energy|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 [[U.S. state|state]] and [[United States Congress|congressional]] entities attempted to challenge the administration's closure plans, by statute and in court.<ref name=abc20130813/>

In August 2013, a US Court of Appeals decision told the NRC and the Obama administration that they must either "approve or reject [DOE'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.<ref name=abc20130813/>

In May 2009, then United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stated:

{{blockquote|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 reactor]]s. 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 [[Radioactive waste#Vitrification|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 dome]]s. 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/213138/q-a-steven-chu/|title=Q & A: Steven Chu|website=MIT Technology Review}}</ref>}}

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.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Hylko |first=James M. |last2=Peltier |first2=Robert |name-list-style=and |date=May 1, 2010 |title=The U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Policy: Road to Nowhere |url=http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/The-U-S-Spent-Nuclear-Fuel-Policy-Road-to-Nowhere_2651.html |work=Power}}</ref> In 2013, this estimate of taxpayer liability was raised to $21 billion.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/07/30/563278/24300/en/Fertel-Tells-Congress-to-Act-Now-on-Used-Nuclear-Fuel-Legislation.html|title=Fertel Tells Congress to Act Now on Used Nuclear Fuel Legislation|first=Nuclear Energy|last=Institute|date=July 30, 2013|website=GlobeNewswire News Room}}</ref> In July 2009, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 on amendments to HHR3183 ({{USHRollCall|2009|591}}) to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the FY2010 budget.<ref name="2010funding"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |title=H.R.3183 – Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 |access-date=2010-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090724070455/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3183/show |archive-date=July 24, 2009}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/|title=Las Vegas News &#124; Breaking News & Headlines|website=Las Vegas Review-Journal}}</ref>

On April 13, 2010, [[Washington (state)|the state of Washington]] filed suit to prevent the closing of Yucca Mountain, since this would slow efforts to clean up the [[Hanford Nuclear Reservation]].<ref>{{Cite news |author=Dininny |first=Shannon |date=April 14, 2010 |title=Washington sues to keep Yucca alive |url=http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/apr/14/washington-sues-to-keep-yucca-alive/ |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Spokesman-Review]] |agency=[[Associated Press]]}}</ref> [[South Carolina]], [[Aiken County, South Carolina|Aiken County]] (the location of the Savannah River site) and others joined Washington state in the suit.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Appeals_court_rejects_Yucca_Mountain_lawsuit-0407115.html |title=Appeals court rejects Yucca Mountain lawsuit |work=[[World Nuclear News]] |date=April 7, 2011 |access-date=2012-03-14}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Mills |first=Chad |date=July 2, 2011 |title=Aiken County still optimistic after Yucca Mountain lawsuit dismissed in federal court |url=http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/07/02/1552655/court-rules-against-washington.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618035624/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/07/02/1552655/court-rules-against-washington.html |archive-date=June 18, 2013 |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[Tri-City Herald]]}}</ref> Washington and South Carolina filed another lawsuit on July 29.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-07-30/washington-state-sc-file-suit-yucca-plans |title=Washington state, S.C. file suit on Yucca plans |agency=Associated Press |work=[[Augusta Chronicle]] |date=July 30, 2011 |access-date=2012-03-14}}</ref>

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, [[United States Senate|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.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Rosen |first=James |date=March 13, 2012 |title=Graham wants Yucca fees repaid in rebates to electricity customers in S.C. |url=http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319163712/http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/03/13/2714903/graham-wants-yucca-fees-repaid.html |archive-date=March 19, 2012 |access-date=2012-03-14 |work=[[The Sun News]]}}</ref>

In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to either "approve or reject [DOE's] application for [the] never-completed waste storage site at Yucca Mountain."<ref name=abc20130813/> 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."<ref name=abc20130813>
{{cite news |last=Daly|first=Matthew |title=Home> Politics Appeals Court: Obama Violating Law on Nuke Site |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/appeals-court-obama-violating-law-nuke-site-19946852 |access-date=2013-08-14 |newspaper=ABC News |date=2013-08-13 }}</ref>

In response, the NRC issued the final volumes of the Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which included the NRC staff's statement that the site would meet all applicable standards. At the same time, the staff also stated that the NRC should not authorize 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.<ref>NRC, "NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation," news release 15-005, January 29, 2015, {{cite web|url=http://www.yuccamountain.org/docs/nrc_press_release-0115-2015.pdf|title=NRC Publishes Final Two Volumes of Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation}}{{PD-notice}}</ref> On March 3, 2015, the 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.<ref>{{cite news|publisher=NRC|title=NRC Staff to Prepare Supplement to Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement|issue=15-016|date=2015-03-12|url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1612/ML16127A067.pdf}}  {{PD-notice}}</ref>

In March 2015, Senator [[Lamar Alexander]] introduced the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2015 (S854) in the U.S. Senate. It was intended to establish a fully independent Nuclear Waste Administration (NWA) that would develop nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities. Construction of such facilities would require the consent of the state, local, and tribal governments that 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").<ref name=":0"/>

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 S.854 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.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42853.pdf |title=Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues|last=Congressional Research Service|date=December 23, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130130103244/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42853.pdf|archive-date=2013-01-30|url-status=dead}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> S.854 died in committee.

As of September 30, 2021, the Nuclear Waste Fund had an investment fair value of $52.4 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/DOE-OIG-22-08.pdf|title=Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Fund's Fiscal Year 2021 Financial Statement Audit|date=November 2021|publisher=Department of Energy}}</ref>

=== Related legislation (2017–2019) ===
On March 15, 2017, the Trump administration announced it would request congressional approval for $120 million to restart licensing activity at the Yucca Mountain repository, with funding also to be used to create an interim storage program. The project would consolidate nuclear waste across the United States in Yucca Mountain, which had been stockpiled in local locations since 2010.<ref name="Author for CNBC, 2017">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/16/the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-dump-a-political-hot-potato-is-back.html
 |title=The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, a political hot potato, is back
 |last=DiChristopher
 |first=Tom
 |date=March 16, 2017 
 |publisher=CNBC
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref> The federal budget proposal<ref name="Brett McGinness for RGI, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/02/20/todays-debate-should-nevada-continue-fight-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-repository-dump/355398002/
 |title=Today's debate: Should Nevada continue to fight Yucca nuclear waste repository?
 |last=McGinness
 |first=Brett
 |date=February 20, 2018 
 |work=[[Reno Gazette Journal]]
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref> was refused by the U.S. Senate.<ref name="Fred Pearce for NYT, 2018">
{{cite news
 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/nuclear-power-radioactive-waste.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FYucca%20Mountain&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
 |title=Awash in Radioactive Waste
 |last=Pearce
 |first=Fred
 |date=May 24, 2018 
 |work=The New York Times
 }}</ref> Although his administration had allocated money to the project, in October 2018, President Donald Trump stated he opposed the use of Yucca mountain for dumping,<ref name="Judy Fahys for KUER, 2018"/> saying he agreed "with the people of Nevada."<ref name="Seung Min Kim for Washington Post, 2018">
{{cite news
 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signals-opposition-to-nuclear-waste-site-in-nevada-despite-his-budget-proposals-to-fund-it/2018/10/21/50eff246-d571-11e8-9559-712cbf726d1c_story.html?noredirect=on
 |title=Trump signals opposition to nuclear waste site in Nevada despite his budget proposals to fund it
 |last=Min Kim
 |first=Seung
 |date=October 21, 2018 
 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
 }}</ref>

On May 11, 2018, the bill H.R. 3053 was approved in a 340–72 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.<ref name="Parkinson for ABC, 2018"/> The bill directed the DOE to resume the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, with licensing for a permanent site at the mountain to "take up to five years."<ref name="Michael Collins for USA Today, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/
 |title=Congress works to revive long-delayed plan to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain
 |last=Collins
 |first=Michael
 |date=June 3, 2018 
 |website=[[USA Today]]
 }}</ref> The [[Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act]] was sponsored by [[John Shimkus]]. ''The Hill'' clarified that the bill would "set a path forward for the DOE to resume the process of planning for and building the southern Nevada site, transfer land to the DOE for it, ease the federal funding mechanism and allow DOE to build or license a temporary site to store waste while the Yucca project is being planned and built."<ref name="Timothy Cama for The Hill, Year"/>

The bill would "direct [the DOE] to revive the licensing process for Yucca Mountain to be designated as the country’s permanent site for nuclear waste." The bill would bring together waste from 121 locations in 39 states. All Nevada representatives opposed the bill. The measure was scheduled to go to the U.S. Senate next, and if passed there, would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide on the matter within 30 months.<ref name="Parkinson for ABC, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nevada-lawmakers-push-back-effort-revive-nuclear-waste/story?id=55095388
 |title=Nevada lawmakers push back on effort to revive nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain
 |last=Parkinson
 |first=John
 |date=May 11, 2018
  |publisher=ABC News
 |access-date=April 29, 2019
 }}</ref>

''The Hill'' noted that the bill received widespread support from lawmakers arguing that nuclear waste was best transferred out of their districts to Yucca Mountain, a concept opposed by Nevada representatives, with politicians such as [[Dina Titus]] dubbing it the "Screw Nevada 2.0" bill. Titus proposed an amendment that would have required long-term storage to be kept in locales that consented, which the U.S. House of Representatives rejected, 332–80.<ref name="Timothy Cama for The Hill, Year">
{{cite web
 |url=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/387086-house-votes-to-advance-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-project
 |title=House votes to advance Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project
 |last=Cama
 |first=Timothy
 |date=May 10, 2018
 |website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]
 |access-date=April 30, 2019
 }}</ref> In their opposition to the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository, Nevada representatives were supported by U.S. Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] of California and other politicians.<ref name="Staff for The LA Times, 2018">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-lame-duck-yucca-mountain-20181217-story.html
 |title=Don't let the window close on a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage deal
 |date=December 17, 2018
 |website=[[Los Angeles Times]]
 |access-date=April 30, 2019
 }}</ref>

In June 2018, the Trump administration and some members of Congress again began proposing using Yucca Mountain, with Nevada Senators raising opposition.<ref name="Michael Collins for USA Today, 2018"/> By early 2019, use of Yucca Mountain was in "political limbo" as opposition to the site led to an impasse. In January 2019, a panel of scientists introduced to Congress a 126-page report, ''Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management'', which proposed including Yucca Mountain as a potential repository with "development of a consensus-based siting process, but one that would still include Yucca Mountain as a candidate."<ref name="Martin for Review Journal, 2019">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/reset-on-nations-nuclear-waste-policy-includes-yucca-mountain-1606813/
 |title='Reset' on nation's nuclear waste policy includes Yucca Mountain
 |last=Martin
 |first=Gary
 |date=February 27, 2019
 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]
 }}</ref>

[[Nevada National Security Site]] officials in April 2019 assured the public that the Device Assembly Facility on the Nevada security site was safe from earthquake threats. In contrast, Nevada officials claimed seismic activity in the region made it unsafe for the storage of nuclear waste.<ref name="Gary Martin for Review Journal, 2019">
{{cite web |last=Martin |first=Gary |date=April 5, 2019 |title=Government says Nevada site for plutonium storage is safe |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/government-says-nevada-site-for-plutonium-storage-is-safe-1634260/ |access-date=April 30, 2019 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]}}</ref> On April 1, 2019, the ''[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]'' noted that "Nevada Democrats in the House" were seeking to block transfers of plutonium from the DOE into the state by the use of the appropriations process.<ref name="Gary martin for Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2019">
{{cite web
 |url=https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada-house-democrats-draw-lines-on-plutonium-yucca-1631187/
 |title=Nevada House Democrats draw lines on plutonium, Yucca
 |last=Martin
 |first=Gary
 |date=April 1, 2019
 |website=[[Las Vegas Review-Journal]]
 |access-date=May 13, 2019}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Horizontal drillhole disposal]]
* [[Deep geological repository]]
* [[Deep borehole disposal]]
* [[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 ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
*{{cite journal |last1=Ialenti |first1=Vincent |date=2014 |title=Adjudicating Deep Time: Revisiting The United States' High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository Project At Yucca Mountain |journal=Science & Technology Studies |volume=27 |issue=2 |doi=10.23987/sts.55323 |ssrn=2457896 |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Macfarlane |editor1-first=Allison M. |editor2-last=Ewing |editor2-first=Rodney C. |title=Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste |publisher=MIT Press |date=2006 |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.
* {{cite book |title=About a Mountain |author-link=John D'Agata |first=John |last=D'Agata |date=2011 |publisher= [[W. W. Norton]] |isbn=9780393339017 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/aboutmountain00john}} Focuses on the mountain as well as the city of Las Vegas.
** Review: {{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/books/review/Bock-t.html |title=American Wasteland |first=Charles |last=Bock |date=February 26, 2010 |work=The New York Times}}

== External links ==
{{commons category}}
* [http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=places/Yucca+Mountain,+Nevada Annotated bibliography for the Yucca Mountain repository from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues]
* [http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/yuccamtn/ Complete archive of Yucca Mountain news coverage from the Las Vegas Review-Journal]
* [http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/index.html Environmental Protection Agency – Yucca Mountain] (documents)
* [https://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo39665 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] 
* [https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.799938,-116.478767&spn=0.200574,0.324200&t=h&hl=en Google Maps] Google Maps satellite image
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070227210853/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/index.htm Nuclear Files.org – Yucca Mountain] (documents)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20050308152317/http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclearwaste/yucca_factsheet.asp "Nuclear Waste"] – [[Sierra Club]] fact sheet in opposition to Yucca Mountain project
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130503122202/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqscanv/ Real time earthquake map for the vicinity of Yucca Mountain – Southern Nevada and California] (U.S. Geological Survey)
* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701588.html Russia plans to take world's spent nuclear fuel]
* [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/ 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.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20071013021000/http://ocrwm.doe.gov/about/index.shtml The Monumental Task of Warning Future Generations] (Yucca Mountain warning signs) (archive link)
* [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/yucca-mountain/yucca-mountain-testimony-comarow_2001-12-08.htm "Time to Think the Unthinkable", Testimony before EPA by David Comarow, Esquire]
* [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00167 U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress – 2nd Session July 9, 2002 cloture vote on S.J. Resolution 34]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080329221001/http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml Yucca Mountain Project] (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, [[United States Department of Energy]]) (archive link)
* [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2005/pdf/eos20050830.pdf Yucca Mountain Could Face Greater Volcanic Threat] (State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor)
* [https://www.energy.gov/environment/ocrwm.htm Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management]
* [http://www.sacredland.org/yucca-mountain/ More on the Yucca Mountain Repository]
* [http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120620220235/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_finalreport_jan2012.pdf Final Report to the Secretary of Energy by the Blue Ribbon Commission]
*[https://www.academia.edu/27875581/The_Atomic_Priesthood_and_Nuclear_Waste_Management_-_Religion_Sci-fi_Literature_and_the_End_of_our_Civilization "Sebastian Musch: The Atomic Priesthood and Nuclear Waste Management – Religion, Sci-fi Literature and the End of our Civilization]
*[https://guides.library.unr.edu/yuccamountain/collectionhistory Yucca Mountain Research Collection at the University of Nevada, Reno]

{{Coord|36|51|10|N|116|25|36|W |region:US-NV_type:landmark_source:dewiki |display=title}}
{{Deep geological repositories}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository}}
[[Category:Environment of Nevada]]
[[Category:History of Nevada]]
[[Category:History of Nye County, Nevada]]
[[Category:Nuclear history of the United States]]
[[Category:Radioactive waste repositories in the United States]]
[[Category:Subterranea of the United States]]
[[Category:United States Department of Energy facilities]]
[[Category:Tunnels in Nevada]]