Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Question - How Wyoming is impacted

by Wyoming Liberty Group

What does Yucca Mountain, about a hundred miles west of the bright lights of Las Vegas, have to do with us in far-away Wyoming?

A lot, as it happens.

Long ago, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed as the site of a permanent site to store nuclear waste, below the surface, in what is called a deep geological repository storage facility.

Let's call it, essentially, a big hole.

But regardless of how it's referred to, the good folks of Nevada didn't like it, fiercely opposing a project that would place toxic waste that lasts for thousands of years in its proverbial backyard.

The proposed Yucca Mountain project was, in effect, dead. And that had a decided effect on us in Wyoming because, under our laws, there is a general prohibition against the storage of radioactive waste here unless the feds come up with a permanent place to store such spent nuclear fuel.

For decades, the federal government has tried to come up with a permanent solution—and failed. There have also been, it should be noted, various proposals and legislative bills to try to bring nuclear waste to Wyoming, dating as far back as the late 1990s.

Earlier this year, a couple of such bills went up in flames, including House Bill 16, "Used nuclear fuel storage-amendments." The other bill that failed was known as SF 186.

None of these proposals have succeeded primarily for this one simple reason: There is a grave concern about the safety of storing nuclear waste that is highly toxic and deadly. What would happen, for instance, if that radioactive waste is somehow released accidentally, causing contamination to people and the environment?

Such accidents have occurred across the globe. Ever heard of Three Mile Island? Or Fukushima? Or Chernobyl?

It's worth noting, however, that our state lawmakers have made some concessions regarding the storage of spent nuclear fuel. That included a provision a few years ago that would permit such storage if it was related to a nuclear plant that operated in Wyoming. That provision was aimed at helping TerraPower, Bill Gates' big nuclear project being built as we speak in the Kemmerer area. That nuclear plant is projected to be up and running in 2030. But before TerraPower can store nuclear waste on site, it will need various approvals from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Meanwhile, there is no solution about where to store nuclear waste permanently—unless perhaps there's a revival of the plan to store the toxic material at Yucca Mountain.

Indeed, there have been rumblings about it. The Trump administration has sought to tamp down those concerns, indicating that there's no plan to resurrect the Yucca Mountain idea. But something may have to give, given the president's executive orders, which seek to dramatically expand the nation's capacity to generate nuclear energy.

What's more, early next year, the president's cabinet chiefs for defense, energy and transportation are tasked to make recommendations on "national policy to support the management of spent nuclear fuel."

Many Nevadans fear that will inevitably open the door to Yucca Mountain again. There is history. That site was selected in 1987 to bury and store 70,000 tons of toxic material, including spent nuclear fuel. But then inconvenient facts intervened, scuttling the plan. For one, it turned out that Yucca Mountain was susceptible to such threats as earthquakes. There was also a problem of what was considered the formation of porous rocks. All of which could potentially mean that the toxic waste might contaminate the region.

Then there was this other complication: Imagine transporting nuclear waste through the bubbling metropolis of Las Vegas. It could be devastating to millions of people if there was an accident, or a terrorist attack on the nuclear waste in transit.

The feds have downplayed such concerns, saying, among other things, that accidents are an incredibly remote possibility. History, in other places around the globe, might argue against that notion.

While federal funding for Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site has stopped, the chatter has not, especially lately. Indeed, Trump, at one point, tried to reassure the restless folks near Yucca Mountain, saying in 2020, "Nevada, I hear you on Yucca Mountain."

Nonetheless, the fact of growing nuclear power activity has brought back to the fore the issue of where to store nuclear waste that inevitably arises as a result; you can't have one with the other. And once a site is selected for permanent storage, it may very well open the door further to the temporary storage of nuclear waste in our own state. So, it behooves us to pay close attention to what happens at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere when it comes to a permanent solution to storing nuclear waste.