Discusses the creation of Yucca Mt in conjunction with the Nuclear Waste Act of 1982

1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982:
Establishing Yucca Mountain as
America's Nuclear Waste Dump Site
By,
Dr. Andrea L. Sitler, PhD

2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982:
Establishing Yucca Mountain as America's Nuclear Waste Dump Site
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission [1] was designed to oversee nuclear related issues
due to the hazards involved with such a product. The transportation[2] of nuclear material
is highly regulated as are the dump sites for nuclear waste. The factors of half lives[3] and
potential of contamination [4] is what brought the need for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982[5]. From these policies comes the Yucca Mountain Project which was selected to
be the dump site for all of America's Nuclear Waste. The Yucca Mountain Project is
under strict scrutiny. It is the ultimate terrorist [6] magnet as well as a myriad of legal
issues and processes. This project must provide a secure site for over 10,000 years of
nuclear waste housing.[7]
In 1982, the U.S. Congress enacted a law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Act
established a comprehensive national program for the safe, permanent disposal of highly
radioactive wastes. This law is based on the principle that our society is responsible for safely
disposing of the nuclear wastes we create.
The Act directed the U.S. Department of Energy to study suitable sites for a geologic repository.
The geologic repository envisioned by the Act is an engineered disposal facility located deep
underground. After more than two decades of scientific study, in 2002, Congress and the President
approved the development of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.[8]
quot;Approximately 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at 131 sites in
39 states. Each year, approximately 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is generated
by operating nuclear power plants. The total amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel is
expected to reach approximately 60,000 metric tons by the year 2010.quot;[9] Locating a safe
haven to rest these spent fuel rods is what the Yucca Mountain Project is all about.
Transporting the rods to Yucca Mountain, NV is the concern of the Department of
Transportation (DOT).[10] Safe transport to a designated facility came under heavy debate

3. during the Joint Hearing of the Railroad and Highway Subcommittees hearing on
transport of spent rods to the Yucca Mountain Facility.1[11]
In June 1979, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the transport of
radioactive material. This agreement delineates the respective responsibilities of DOT and NRC
for the regulation of radioactive material in transport. DOT and NRC also agreed to maintain
consistent and comprehensive transportation regulations. Due to advancements of transportation
and security programs, they both plan to review their regulatory plans within the next two years.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) responsible
for site selection, construction, and operation of an underground disposal facility for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to set up a
process for Congressional review of the site and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain and
stressed that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped
immediately and DOE will seek new direction from Congress. In February 2002, the President
approved Yucca Mountain as a repository site.
Under the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendment in April 2002, the Governor of Nevada
issued a notice of disapproval of the site selection. The site is disapproved unless Congress passes
a joint resolution to approve the site during the first 90 calendar days of continuous session
following the notice of disapproval. On April 11, 2002, H.J.Res. 87 was introduced by
Congressman Barton. Pending proposed Subcommittee action, the Energy and Commerce
Committee plans to report H.J.Res. 87 on Thursday, April 25, 2002.
If the Yucca site is approved, it is likely spent nuclear fuel will be shipped from around the
country to the site primarily by railroads. Despite railroad opposition, the Interstate Commerce
Commission ruled that railroads are required by federal law (as common carriers) to transport all
goods tendered to it. 2[12]
Yucca Mountain had many supporters as well as objectors.
In the 1992 Energy Policy Act, Congress ordered the three agencies to focus their full attention on
this site and to devise the safest storage structure feasible there.
To ensure their success, Congress charged an independent panel of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) with analyzing Yucca Mountain. And, Congress required that the containment
standards eventually created be quot;consistent with and based uponquot; NAS's findings.
1[11] Subcommittee on Railroads and Subcommittee on Highway and Transit, Joint Hearing. (n.d.).
Transportation of Spent Rods to the Proposed Yucca Mountain Storage Facility, Retrieved April 3, 2006
from http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/04-25-02/04-25-02memo.html
2[12] Subcommittee on Railroads and Subcommittee on Highway and Transit, Joint Hearing. (n.d.).
Transportation of Spent Rods to the Proposed Yucca Mountain Storage Facility, Retrieved April 3, 2006
from http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/04-25-02/04-25-02memo.html

4. Analyzing Yucca took much of the next decade. Working through its contingencies produced a
detailed knowledge of Yucca Mountain and its probable futures. The design was tweaked
accordingly.3[13]
quot;Yucca Mountain was chosen as the potential site for geologic disposal of high-level
radioactive waste partly because of its geologic setting, which is a natural barrier to the
potential movement of radionuclides from the site. USGS geologists have worked for
more than twenty years to characterize the site geology for repository design.quot;4[14]
Analysis of rock properties, geologic history, geologic structures that could affect
groundwater flow and contamination as well the potential for future geologic hazards
such as volcanoes, earthquakes and erosion are all factors in selecting Yucca Mountain as
the waste disposal site. 5[15]
The chosen site, just as White Sands in NM, is one which has been used for years of weapons
testing. Radiation and such is nothing new in this area. The disposal site is to be situated on the
edges of Nellis Air Force Base and the Nevada Test Site. Both sites are government properties.
The next neighbor is Death Valley. With temperatures topping 140 degrees, the population there
is minimal as well. Nevada is a hot, dry, desert climate. There is little rain to be concerned with
ground seepage and run off.
Yucca Mountain is a 1200 foot high flat topped volcanic ridge extending six miles north to south.
It is comprised of tuff, a rock made from compacted volcanic ash formed approx. 13 million years
ago. The nuclear waste repository would be built approx. 1000 ft. below the land surface and
1000 ft above the water table. The repository would house 77,000 tons of highly radioactive
material form 72 commercial and 43 research sites in 43 states. The material would come from
commercial nuclear power plants and government’s weapons programs.6[16]
3[13] Colburn, J. (2004). The Yucca Mountain Radioactive Waste Site Controversy: The Role A Recent
Federal Appellate Decision In The Controversy May Play in the Presidential Election, Retrieved April 23,
2006 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20041014_colburn.html
4[14] U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Study. (n.d.). Geological Study, Retrieved March 29,
2006 from http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/GeologicStudies.htm
5[15] ibid
6[16] Dickerson, A. (2003). Yucca Mountain, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.geocities.com/adickerson_consultant/yucca_mt.html

5. The nuclear waste is to be stored in emplacement tunnels7[17]. These tunnels are bored
into the mountain, sealed by doors and back filled with rock material. Inside the tunnels,
robotic observation gantries monitor waste packages for possible leaks or disturbances
from natural occurrences. According to government engineers, waste packages can be
removed and the process reversed, in emergency situations.
The design of the facility is such that waste materials will pose no significant risks for a period
lasting beyond 10,000 years. The bulk of the disposed material is to be 90% inactive within 100
years. Opponents are concerned by the area’s seismic and volcanic history, erosion and other
natural geologic events. They say that if a natural disaster were to happen in the area and
compromise the repository’s design, water passing through Yucca Mt. and storage tunnels might
pick up radioactive elements and carry them to the aquifer water table below. This flows
southeast into the Amargosa Valley where there are people and agriculture.8[18]
Geological events are of concern when determining where to construct a nuclear waste
disposal site. The DOE ordered studies of earthquakes and volcanic events in the area.
The largest earthquake at the repository itself, as known from geologic evidence, had a slip of
about 1 meter; earthquakes of this size appear to recur at intervals like tens of thousands of years
there. The possibility of strong ground motion from faults outside the immediate area exists at a
much smaller recurrence interval, but their ground motion is predicted to be less and is being
considered in the seismic design.
Study 1 - Analysis of the available data indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic
events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported
underground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.
The most notable event during this period was a magnitude 5.6 earthquake near Little Skull
Mountain, about 8 miles southeast of the Yucca Mountain site, which occurred on June 29, 1992.
This earthquake caused damage to a nearby Department of Energy field office building. This
earthquake, and many after-shocks, occurred on a fault that had not previously been identified.
The Little Skull Mountain earthquake and numerous others at about the same time in the western
7[17] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. (n.d.). The Environment in the Potential Waste
Emplacement Tunnels, Retrieved March 28, 2006 from
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/science/emplacetunnel.shtml
8[18] A Closer Look at Yucca Mountain, Retrieved March 28,2006 from
http://www.yuccamountain.org/photo/graphic0202.jpg

6. U.S. are considered to have been triggered by the magnitude 7.4 Landers earthquake, in
California.
The only significant cluster of earthquake activity in the 50-mile radius area is in Rock Valley,
about 12 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain. The data base also reveals that, in 1948, there was a
magnitude 3.6 event on the southeast boundary of the Yucca Mountain site, in an area known to
have a number of faults. Recently, there have been other events recorded beneath Yucca Mountain
with magnitudes less than 2.5.
Earthquake activity is a safety concern both during operation, above and below ground, and after
closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain.
The mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range, including the Yucca Mountain area, are
a result of millions of years of intense faulting and volcanism. Records of recent events indicate
that faulting is an ongoing process in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain that is expected to continue
long into the future. Thirty-three faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca
Mountain site.9[19]
Study 2 - PASADENA--Recent geodetic measurements using Global Positioning System (GPS)
satellites show that the Yucca Mountain area in southern Nevada is straining roughly 10 to 100
times faster than expected on the basis of the geologic history of the area. And for the moment at
least, geologists are at a loss to explain the anomaly.
In the March 28 issue of the journal Science, Brian Wernicke of the California Institute of
Technology (Caltech) and his colleagues at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, report on Global Positioning System surveys they conducted from
1991 to 1997. Those surveys show that the Yucca Mountain area is stretching apart at about one
millimeter per year east-southeastward.
quot;The question is why the predicted geological rates of stretching are so much lower than what we
are measuring?quot; asks Wernicke. quot;That's something we need to think through and understand.quot;
The answer is likely to be of interest to quite a few people, because Yucca Mountain has been
proposed as a site for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Experts believe that
the waste-disposal site can accommodate a certain amount of seismic activity, but they nonetheless
would like for any site to have a certain amount of stability over the next 10,000 to 100,000 years.
Yucca Mountain was already known to have both seismic and volcanic activity, Wernicke says.
An example of the former is the 5.4-magnitude quot;Little Skull Mountainquot; earthquake that occurred
in 1992. And an example of the latter is the 80,000-year-old volcano to the south of the mountain.
The volcano is inactive, but still must be studied according to Department of Energy regulations.
The problem the new study poses is that the strain is building up in the crust at a rate about one-
fourth that of the most rapidly straining areas of the earth's crust, such as near the San Andreas
fault, Wernicke says. But there could be other factors at work.
quot;There are three possibilities that we outline in the paper as to why the satellite data doesn't agree
with the average predicted by the geological record,quot; he says. quot;Either the average is wrong, or we
9[19] State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. (n.d.). Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca
Mountain, Retrieved March 28,2006 from http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm

7. are wrong, or there's some kind of pulse of activity going on and we just happened to take our data
during the pulse.quot;
The latter scenario, Wernicke believes, could turn out to be the case. But if Yucca Mountain is
really as seismically active as the current data indicate at face value, the likelihood of magmatic
and tectonic events could be 10 times higher than once believed.10[20]
Earthquakes are common on the San Andres fault. This line runs to the west of the
Yucca Mountains. When a large earthquake is experienced in CA, there is ground
motion felt at Yucca but nothing that can do damage.11[21] The facility is designed to
California earthquake standards or higher. This meaning that CA standards say building
must withstand an earthquake up to a magnitude of seven. This facility is being
constructed to withstand even greater magnitude quakes. The Yucca Mountain facility is
to withstand earthquakes up to any currently conceivable level.
The issue of earthquakes during transport is also taken into consideration and provisions
have been put into place. Only solid waste is proposed for storage, therefore an
earthquake would not result in any direct release of radioactivity to the air or ground
water even if, in an extremely unlikely event, a canister were ruptured.12[22]
Seismologists believe that the level of seismic activity in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain has
stayed about the same, except for a few years following the 1992 Little Skull Mt. earthquake
which had thousands of aftershocks, but confined to a relatively small area. The current level
seems consistent with the historical level and probably with the level over the past few thousand
years. Continued monitoring is important in verifying that this level stays nearly constant. The
appearance of many earthquakes near Yucca Mountain on some NSL maps of seismic activity is,
in large part, due to the dense and sensitive network that NSL operates there. In geologic time, it
has been over 50,000 years since an event of at least M 6.5 has occurred within this range.13[23]
10[20] Yucca Mountain is possibly more seismically active than once believed, geologists discover. (1998).
Science Magazine, Retrieved April 2, 2006 from http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/032698YUCCA.html
11[21] United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. (2003). Joint Meeting of Site
Characterization and Repository Panels on Seismic Issues, Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.nwtrb.gov/meetings/030224.doc
12[22] Baciak, J. (2002). Pro Yucca Mountain Final Paper, Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/project2002/pro/main_finalpaper.doc
13[23] Nevada Seismological Laboratory. (2005). Earthquake Information, Retrieved April 3, 2006 from
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/quakes.html

8. Transport of the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain is a concern. Both truck transport and
rail transport will be used14[24]. The routes for entrance to this facility are being
carefully thought out and designed. This is to insure the least amount of access to people
or natural disasters such as an earthquake enroot. Flight plans from Nellis Air Force Base
was also discussed.15[25] The potential for terrorists' attacks upon the shipments is also
under study.
Specially equipped facilities and personnel specifically trained in the handling of high-
level radioactive waste will man this facility. This holds true for any personnel involved
in any way with this facility, the transportation, packaging, handling at either end and so
forth. What people in general fail to realize is that the people working with this product
are taught to respect the product. They desire their own personal safety and will be
subjecting themselves to great personal harm should they not be diligent in their
work.16[26]
President George W. Bush agreed with the logic and studies of these scientists and
engineers enough that on July 23, 2002, after two decades of study17[27] and debate in
both the House and Senate, he signed House Joint Resolution 87- the Yucca Mountain
Bill. This quot;will allow us, after a decade of scientific study, to take the next step in
establishing a safe repository in which to store our nation's nuclear waste.quot;18[28]
14[24] Riddel, M., Dwyer, C., Shaw, W.D. (2003). Environmental Risk and Uncertainty: Insights from
Yucca Mountain. Journal of Regional Science, 43(3), pp. 435-458(24). Retrieved April 20, 2006 from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jors/2003/00000043/00000003/art00001
15[25] State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. (1996). U. S. Air Force Notice of Intent (NOI) for
the Nellis Range, Retrieved March 27, 2006 from http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/nell-eis.htm
16[26] U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Transportation Program. (1999). Transporting Radioactive
Materials, Retrieved March 27, 2006 from http://web.em.doe.gov/otem/ntp/htdocs/ramquestions.pdf
17[27] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. (n.d.). Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Retrieved
April 5,2006 from http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/nwpa.shtml
18[28] President Signs Yucca Mountain Bill. (2002). Retrieved March 27,2006 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020723-2.html

9. Yucca Mountain is located approximately 100 miles Northwest of Las Vegas19[29].
quot;The scientists have researched and developed advanced methods of disposal that works
with the mountain to protect the general population.quot; 20[30]Supporters say the winds do
not blow in the direction of Las Vegas. They claim the area to be sparsely populated, dry
and stable.
Even after the President signed the Yucca Mountain Bill, much object still surrounds this
project. quot;As always, the population in these remote areas is primarily Native
Americans.quot;21[31] A local Indian Tribe, the Western Shoshone Nation,22[32] is near by
the mountain living on reservation land. Many claim that the government still sees this
land as government land thereby being able to use it as they deem fit. History has proven
to us that the government has placed little value in the life of an Indian23[33] and
therefore would not consider them a potential factor of risk.
Local groups, tribes and scientists paint an entirely different view of the Yucca Mountain
project. On the surface, you see a quot;not in my backyard syndromequot; however the reasons
for choosing Yucca Mountain may be more political than scientific.24[34]
19[29] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project. (n.d.). Retrieved
April 15, 2006 from http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/remote.shtml
20[30] Kurowski, J. & Reich, S. (n.d.). How Yucca Mountain Would Work, Retrieved April 2, 2006 from
http://www.rgj.com/news/files/2002/01/11/4186.jpg.php
21[31] Dickerson, A. (2003). Yucca Mountain, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.geocities.com/drandrealsitlerphd/yuccamountain.html
22[32] Yucca Mountain - The Public perspective. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.nvantinuclear.org/undemocratic.htm
23[33] Dann, Carrie. (2004). Western Shoshone Defense Project, Retrieved April 12, 2006 from
http://www.wsdp.org/arc_distribution.htm#060104
24[34] Ewing, R. (2003). Nuclear Engineering Professor Questions Feds' Commitment to Yucca Mountain,
Scientific American, 1(6), Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/ymupdate/ymupdate030220.htm

10. Though the nuclear industry has been quoted as saying that Yucca Mountain is quot;oppressively hot,
bone dry, and uninhabited,quot; there is actually a large water table there that supplies water to the
very much inhabited Amargosa Valley farming region. From this region milk from dairy cows,
alfalfa, and nuts, amongst other things, are produced and shipped all over the country for
consumption.
There are 33 known earthquake faults in and around the Yucca Mountain site. And did you know
that it is in a volcanic zone? One volcano, just 10 miles away, is believed by scientists to be the
biggest threat to the site.
Do you think that a small mountain that sits near volcanoes, in an active earthquake region, and
atop a large water table, the cleanliness of which affects food products which feed the entire
country, is a good place for permanent high-level nuclear waste storage? Neither does the
Department of Energy (DOE), really. Since nuclear waste is so unpopular, the only quot;goodquot; place
for it is wherever the nuclear industry can force it. It figures that Nevada was thought to be an easy
target because the federal government has been forcing things on Nevada for more than 50 years
... above and below ground testing at the Nevada Test Site, etc. More than two-thirds of the land in
the state of Nevada is owned by the federal government; and, though Nevada is the third most
seismically active state in the Union, it has fewer representatives in the congress than many states.
Only California and Alaska have more frequent earthquakes. During the last 20 years there have
been more than 600 earthquakes within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain.
However, with the permanent population of Las Vegas, NV currently growing at a rate of 6,000
per month, Nevada's political power continues to increase. And the unpopularity of nuclear waste
and of the nuclear industry continues to increase. People everywhere are recognizing the insanity
of the nuclear fuel cycle.25[35]
The U.S. Government, through Senate Bill 95826[36], introduced, May 24th, 2001, - the
quot;Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Actquot;27[37], is attempting to once again renege
on a treaty with an Indian Nation. The government needs the Western Shoshone Nation
to sell them the land or to find a way to force the Nation off the land in order to build this
site and its railway. This bill avoids just compensation under the Fifth Amendment,
which would provide approximately $20 billion to the Western Shoshone Nation.
In the US v. Sioux Nation, 448 US 371 (1980); the Supreme Court28[38] held that a
taking by the US in violation of a similar treaty was covered by the Fifth Amendment
25[35] Geologically Ill-chosen (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from http://www.nvantinuclear.org/ill-chosen.htm
26[36] Bills and Joint Resolutions Senate Bill 958. (2001). Congressional Record, p. S5635, Retrieved April 7, 2006
from http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/reid958.html
27[37] Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. (2001). Retrieved April 2, 2006 from
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/s958.html
28[38] United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).

11. including compound interest. The US has made no equitable offer of settlement, and the
Western Shoshone Nation is under no obligation to sell property that is constitutionally
guaranteed.
The Treaty of Ruby Valley29[39] shares equal status with the US Constitution, Art.
IV30[40], quot;This Constitution… and all treaties made… shall be the supreme law of the
land.quot; Congress can not legislatively supersede the US Constitution. To do so is
constitutional subversion. Additionally, the Western Shoshone Nation, as any Indian
Tribe, does not wish to sell their land.31[41]
This entire land issue has delayed but not stopped the project.
One thing not mentioned is that the most legally secure argument against Yucca Mountain and any
further spending is the fact that the DOE cannot show clear title to the area. The US DOE is
required to show ownership of the quot;controlled areaquot; by 10 CFR 63.121. It cannot do this because
Yucca Mountain, sacred to Western Shoshone, is located within Western Shoshone ancestral and
Treaty lands. The 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, recognizing Western Shoshone land boundaries is
still in full force and effect. See Western Shoshone v. U.S., No. 03-CV-2009, U.S. District Court,
D.C. (Judge Lamberth), www.hermanlaw.org. Further, ancestral title is still very much alive
despite U.S. attempts to silence the issue through use of the Indian Claims Commission Act. See
Complaint, Western Shoshone v. U.S.. In fact, in January of last year, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, found the U.S. in violation of
international law (right to property, to due process and to equality under the law) with regard to
the U.S.' refusal to recognize Western Shoshone rights to these lands. See www.indianlaw.org
(Dann decision).quot;32[42]
29[39] Native America in the New Millennium, p. 42. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2006
from http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/docs/CIP%20-
%20NANM%20Final%20Working%20Draft%20July%2011%202001.pdf
30[40] Cornell Law School. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
31[41] Action Alert. (2001). Retrieved April 11, 2006 from
http://www.shundahai.org/claims_action_alert_0501.htm
32[42] Yucca Mountain Plan Irresponsible and In Light of Western Shoshone Title, Illegal. (2004).
Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://www.wsdp.org/arc_distribution.htm#020404yucca

12. This controversial project has gathered much attention. Studies upon studies continue as
this project develops. Environmental Impact Studies top the list.33[43] Even the
studies34[44] disagree and conflict.35[45] This adds more fuel to the fire of the opposing
parties.
The exponentially growing Las Vegas population36[46] is providing Nevada with the
potential for new representation. Law suits abound to end the project while threats from
key senators edge the President forward. Despite all the set backs and distractions, Yucca
Mountain is forging forward.37[47]
Yucca Mountain was approved for development in 2002 and DOE had to delay their request for a
site license for construction in 2004. Submission of a license application was delayed for several
reasons; however, two primary and persistent problems are a court ruling that invalidates the EPA
compliance period for waste disposal and under funding of the Yucca Mountain project by about
$1 billion over the past 10 years. Spending within OCRWM will focus on defending the
department's license application at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, improving decaying site
infrastructure, planning facilities for the receipt of spent waste and developing a transportation
infrastructure for spent waste.
Overall the Yucca Mountain project would receive $355.4 million, an increase of $49.5 million
over FY 2006 funding. Transportation development would increase from $19.9 million in FY
2006 to $67.8 million and the President's request eliminates funding for the Integrated Spent Fuel
Recycling program that Congress appropriated $49.5 million for in FY 2006.38[48]
33[43] Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) quot;Issuesquot; for Yucca Mountain. (2005). Retrieved April 19,
2006 from http://www.yuccamountain.org/eis_news_archives.htm
34[44] Pielke, R. (2004). Prometheus: Yucca Mountain, Politics, Science, and the NRC, Retrieved April
23, 2006
from
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/000131yucca_mountain_poli.html
35[45] Buffa, A., et al. (2003). Public Citizen Global Exchange Corp Watch, pp. 17-18, Retrieved from
http://www.citizen.org/documents/profilebechtel.pdf on April 22, 2006
36[46] Census Scope. (2000). Retrieved April 2, 2006 from
http://www.censusscope.org/us/m4120/chart_popl.html
37[47] What's New -Yucca Mountain in the News. (2006). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.yuccamountain.org/new.htm
38[48] American Geological Institute. (2006). FY2007 Department of Energy Appropriations, Retrieved
April 22, 2006 from http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/appropsfy2007_energy.html

13. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken on a tough and much needed project.
Much litigation and legal issues have been examined and decided. Many more legal
issues are still on the horizon. A solution for disposal should have been considered before
construction but as with many projects, this was not the case. Since the beginning of the
Nuclear Age39[49] in 1895 by the discovery of x-rays by Wilhelm Roentgen, we have
been dealing with nuclear concerns.40[50] The Manhattan Project41[51] in 1942 brought
the reality of the effects of radioactivity to the attention of the government. Finally, over
sixty years later, thanks to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, we are beginning to
provide an answer for these issues.
39[49] U.S. Department of Energy. (1999). Nuclear Age Timeline, Retrieved April 23,
2006 from http://web.em.doe.gov/timeline/
40[50] Makhijani, A. & Saleska, S. (1996). High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense. Takoma Park: IEER
Press
41[51] Department of Energy. (n.d.). The Manhattan Project: A New and Secret World of Human
Experimentation, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_3.html

14. References
A Closer Look at Yucca Mountain. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2006 from
http://www.yuccamountain.org/photo/graphic0202.jpg
Action Alert. (2001). Retrieved April 11, 2006 from
http://www.shundahai.org/claims_action_alert_0501.htm
American Geological Institute. (2006). FY2007 Department of Energy Appropriations,
Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/appropsfy2007_energy.html
Baciak, J. (2002). Pro Yucca Mountain Final Paper, Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.engin.umich.edu/class/ners211/project2002/pro/main_finalpaper.d
oc
Bills and Joint Resolutions Senate Bill 958. (2001). Congressional Record, p. S5635,
Retrieved April 7, 2006 from
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/reid958.html
Buffa, A., et al. (2003). Public Citizen Global Exchange Corp Watch, pp. 17-18,
Retrieved from http://www.citizen.org/documents/profilebechtel.pdf on April
22, 2006
Census Scope. (2000). Retrieved April 2, 2006 from
http://www.censusscope.org/us/m4120/chart_popl.html

15. Colburn, J. (2004). The Yucca Mountain Radioactive Waste Site Controversy: The
Role A Recent Federal Appellate Decision In The Controversy May Play in the
Presidential Election, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20041014_colburn.html
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). U.S. Constitution, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html
Dann, C. (2004). Western Shoshone Defense Project, Retrieved April 12, 2006 from
http://www.wsdp.org/arc_distribution.htm#060104
Department of Energy. (n.d.). The Manhattan Project: A New and Secret World of
Human Experimentation, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_3.html
Department of Transportation. (2002). Review of Department Oversight for
Transportation of Nuclear Waste, Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cr2002073.pdf
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) quot;Issuesquot; for Yucca Mountain. (2005).
Retrieved April 19, 2006 from
http://www.yuccamountain.org/eis_news_archives.htm
Ewing, R. (2003). Nuclear Engineering Professor Questions Feds' Commitment to
Yucca Mountain, Scientific American, 1(6), Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/ymupdate/ymupdate030220.htm

16. Geologically Ill-chosen (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.nvantinuclear.org/ill-chosen.htm
Gold, E. (n.d.). Nuclear Waste Disposal, Retrieved April 3, 2006
from http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/EZRA/
Kurowski, J. & Reich, S. (n.d.). How Yucca Mountain Would Work, Retrieved April
2, 2006 from http://www.rgj.com/news/files/2002/01/11/4186.jpg.php
Makhijani, A. & Saleska, S. (1996). High-Level Dollars, Low-Level Sense. Takoma
Park: IEER Press
Makhijani, A. & Zerriffi, H. (2000). The Nuclear Alchemy Gamble. Takoma Park:
IEER Press
Makhijani, A. Ph.D. (2001). Securing the Energy Future of the United States. Takoma
Park: IEER Press
Native America in the New Millennium, p. 42. (n.d.). Retrieved on April 23, 2006 from
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/docs/CIP%20-
%20NANM%20Final%20Working%20Draft%20July%2011%202001.pdf
Nevada Seismological Laboratory. (2005). Earthquake Information, Retrieved April 3,
2006 from http://www.seismo.unr.edu/quakes.html
Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. EPA, et al., 373 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

17. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. (n.d.). The Environment in the
Potential Waste Emplacement Tunnels, Retrieved March 28, 2006 from
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/science/emplacetunnel.shtml
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. (n.d.). Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
Retrieved April 5,2006 from
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/nwpa.shtml
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Project. (n.d.).
Retrieved April 15, 2006 from
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/about/remote.shtml
Pielke, R. (2004). Prometheus: Yucca Mountain, Politics, Science, and the NRC,
Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/energy_policy/000131y
ucca_mountain_poli.html
Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. (2005). Retrieved April 15,
2006 from http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/rules/final/69fr/69fr-12088.htm
President Signs Yucca Mountain Bill. (2002). Retrieved March 27, 2006 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/07/20020723-2.html
Riddel, M., Dwyer, C., Shaw, W.D. (2003). Environmental Risk and Uncertainty:
Insights from Yucca Mountain. Journal of Regional Science, 43(3), pp. 435-
458(24). Retrieved April 20, 2006 from

18. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jors/2003/00000043/00000003/art
00001
Sitler, A. (2003). Yucca Mountain, Retrieved April 23, 2006 from
http://www.geocities.com/drandrealsitlerphd/yuccamountain.html
State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. (n.d.). Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of
Yucca Mountain, Retrieved March 28,2006 from
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm
State of Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office. (1996). U. S. Air Force Notice of Intent
(NOI) for the Nellis Range, Retrieved March 27, 2006 from
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/eis/nell-eis.htm
Subcommittee on Railroads and Subcommittee on Highway and Transit, Joint
Hearing. (2002). Transportation of Spent Rods to the Proposed Yucca
Mountain Storage Facility, Retrieved April 3, 2006 from
http://www.house.gov/transportation/highway/04-25-02/04-25-02memo.html
United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980).
U.S. Department of Energy. (1999). Nuclear Age Timeline, Retrieved April 23, 2006
from http://web.em.doe.gov/timeline/
U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Transportation Program. (1999). Transporting
Radioactive Materials, Retrieved March 27, 2006 from
http://web.em.doe.gov/otem/ntp/htdocs/ramquestions.pdf

19. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Study. (n.d.). Geological Study,
Retrieved March 29, 2006 from
http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/GeologicStudies.htm
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2006). Who We Are, Retreived April 2, 2006
from http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are.html
United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. (2003). Joint Meeting of Site
Characterization and Repository Panels on Seismic Issues, Retrieved April 22,
2006 from http://www.nwtrb.gov/meetings/030224.doc
Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. (2001). Retrieved April 2,
2006 from http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shoshone/s958.html
What's New -Yucca Mountain in the News. (2006). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.yuccamountain.org/new.htm
Yucca Mountain Plan Irresponsible and In Light of Western Shoshone Title, Illegal.
(2004). Retrieved April 10, 2006 from
http://www.wsdp.org/arc_distribution.htm#020404yucca
Yucca Mountain is possibly more seismically active than once believed, geologists
discover. (1998). Science Magazine, Retrieved April 2, 2006 from
http://pr.caltech.edu/media/lead/032698YUCCA.html
Yucca Mountain - The Public perspective. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2006 from
http://www.nvantinuclear.org/undemocratic.htm

20. Dr. Andrea Leigh Sitler, PhD
April 23, 2006