Editing Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository (section)

==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 |first1=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>