Talk:Yucca Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Nevada This article is part of WikiProject Nevada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nevada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I tagged the whole article for clean-up. As I read it I really started to feel that the article didn't comply to NPOV writing standard. After reviewing the discussion and seeing some other basic objections and the lack of any serious recent discussion I decided the best thing to do for now was to tag for clean-up. As noted below, this article should be labeled for the proposed nuclear waste facility and a separate article for the geological site should be used. Ericnoel (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yucca Mountain is going to go online in 2008. Dogg[1]

That's totally absurd, and your "ref" tag is empty.Bustter (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to include some of the controversy over possible worker safety issues at Yucca Mountain, specifically screening for Silicosis. - http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-5/p30.html

IST301 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)IST301

Two things:

  • There is a larger, better (in my opinion) picture of the Yucca Mountain ridge at Image:Yucca Mountain 2.jpg. Maybe we should use that one instead.
  • Image:Yucca Mountain.jpg is being used as a picture gallery. I find this a little silly, unnecessary, and not standard. Maybe a new page should be created, such as Yucca Mountain/Images?

I'll do both of these in a few days if nobody objects. --Fastfission 00:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Featured article

I plan on bringing Yucca Mountain up to featured article shape in the very near future. Anyone interested in helping should let me know on my talk page. I look forward to working with you all. watch — oo64eva (AJ) (U | T | C) @ 09:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In Feburary I visited the Yucca Mountain info facility in Beatty, Nevada, and I have some notes I took there. I'll see if I can hammer them into some kind of shape. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For feature status, some updating is needed:
"Project director Ward Sproat urged senators to pass a bill to clear away problems that could delay DOE's latest repository deadline of 2017.
"The probability of making that schedule without the legislation is zero," Sproat said.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Aug-04-Fri-2006/news/8883100.html
Opponents to the project are pointing out that the $57.6 billion cost basis was predicated on a 2010 opening. There have been no revised cost analyses for the 2017 target date.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/8596105.html
WASHINGTON -- While the Walker River Paiutes will allow the Energy Department to study shipping nuclear waste through their reservation, tribal leaders said Friday they will not sign off on the route unless they are convinced it is safe.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-03-Sat-2006/news/7760370.html
And a qualified party should read and evaluate "Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation's High-Level Nuclear Waste," a recent publication by Allison M. Macfarlane, a Research Associate at MIT's Program in Science, Technology, and Society, and Prof. Rodney C. Ewing of the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Michigan
The above list is not inclusive, please see the link that I added this date.

Bustter 05:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Nevada Resident)

I just took a quick look at the RJ articles above. If the Walker River Paiute Tribe does not sign off on the Mina route, the Caliente corridor is still open. I would not be overly concerned with the price tag. The money that is being spent on Yucca Mountain could only be spent on Yucca or a similar repository, as per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This money comes from a surcharge of 0.1 cents/kW-hr added to the bills of anyone using nuclear power. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book that you linked to at the moment, so I can't review that currently. Goldry bluzco (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

On the articles listed above, I also as a Nevada resident understand that the Las Vegas SUN and the RJ are extremely biased and little they publish has much truth and is about as far from fair and balanced as Senator Reid and Congresswoman Berkeley! That aside, I agree that those articles should be cited so that both sides are represented. Intelligent people have no problem seeing the lies. Better unbiased articles can be found in other major newspapers such as the Washington DC and New York papers. Los Angeles is also extremely left winged and seldom can tear themselves away from propaganda. The book by Allison M. Macfarlane should be added since it is strongly opposed to Yucca Mountain and represents the extreme left anti-nuclear opinion. They have both been on the payroll for the State of Nevada so I don't expect anything that can be verified or is fair and balanced, but it is certainly worthy of being added to this entry to represent the far left extreme. User: Rogerhenning 21:06 August, 16, 2006

Your implication that those who are left of you politically are invariably of less noble motive than yourself and others like you pinpoints one of the main obstacles to getting this piece to NPOV. The last paper I cited above was peer-reviewed; is that not sufficient guard against "liberal" skew?Bustter (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes from Yucca

Here's what I wrote down:

90% of the waste is from the civilian nuclear power prgramme, with some military waste (some of it dating from the Manhattan project). All the waste is from the US (i.e. none from foreign countries).
A large part of the military low level waste is stored at the WIPP.
Unlike most other nuclear countries, the US does not reprocess spent fuel elements - so what will be stored at Yucca is unaltered fuel elements (they come in square arrays of fuel rods mounted in a frame). This means the effective volume of the waste is much higher than other countries' depositories, as other contries separate the high level waste (the fuel material itself) from the medium level containers. Also the volume is higher because other counties, such as the UK and France, reenrich the fuel. Other than this, some of the oldest waste is in vitrified form (apparently all the manhattan project stuff is).
Yes, and if the U.S. continues with the once-through fuel cycle, Yucca Mountain will fill up within twenty years of opening.
The reason the US doesn't reprocess fuel is that it was trying to set a good example for other countries followng the passage of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Although the NPT doesn't ban reprocessing, the US hoped to discourage other countries (like Japan) which had civlilian nuclear capacity from reprocessing, which would mean they'd end up with a plutonium stockpile that would be a tempting subject of subsequent weaponisation. Apparently other countries, however, didn't really take the hint :)
They realize that the value of reprocessing the fuel vastly outweighs proliferation fears. After 9/11 however, I doubt the U.S. will move their feet on this.
Access to the Yucca site is restricted (there is a tour, but one must book ahead), so Bechtel SAIC runs visitor centres in Las Vegas, Beatty, and Pahrump.
On the USGS geodetic map, Yucca Mountain appears to be a small mountain range, but the whole thing is called Yucca Mountain. The land on the mountain is controlled by the airforce (the Nellis Air Force Range, I think this is the northern end), the department of energy (the National Test Site, most of the rest) and a small amount by the Bureau of Land Management (a little corner in the south).
As of 2005 only the 5m diameter horseshoe shaped main tunnel has been built, no surface installation yet, no galleries, and naturally no nuclear waste. The project is stalled awaiting congress to release the funds to complete it and get it going. This money will not come from the US taxpayer - apparently nuclear generating companies have been paying a levy since they began, and these levies are kept in a trustfund intended to pay for their long-term disposal. Congress is the gatekeeper to these funds.
Also, the licensing process with the NRC is still ongoing. Damn red tape.
Yucca mountain isn't necessarily intended to be a truly terminal storage facility. The current plan is to keep stuff there (perhaps for 300 years) and then reprocess it. The hope clearly is that reprocessing technologies will have improved (ideally in much less than 300 years) so that the waste can be safely destroyed or dispersed entirely at that time. The current design proposal has the facility keep waste for up to 1000 years. It would be stored in galleries off the main tunnel, still in monitorable, movable, managable vessels (i.e. they're not just chucking it all in a hole and forgetting about it). Some members of congress believe, however, that with the best will in the world eventually the government will stop monitoring the site, and essentially leave it to fend for itself. These members want the design changed so that the facility will contain the waste for 10,000 years (rather than 1000).
With timelines like that we might have the technology to store wastes on the moon. Wouldn't that be a relief for residents of Pahrump!
The designers haven't settled exactly how densely the waste will be stored. This directly effects the operating temperature of the facility. (I didn't write down how hot they said it would be, but it was something like 60 celcius). One of Bechtel/SAIC's challenges in proving the facility is safe is to determine the long-term effects this heat will have on the surrounding rock - they're worried that it might be transformed into some less favourable type (messing up their estimates for its ability to contain leaks).

The lady at the Beatty facility promised to mail me a big stack of stuff that I'd picked out from their documentation library, but it's been a couple of months and still no show (although she said it would be international surface mail, so all is not lost). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 18:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should note (if it's not obvious) that this means the waste is still encapsulated inside hermetically sealed stainless-steel fuel rods, not sitting around in ominous barrels of glowing Simpsonsesque goo. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Great notes. I just did a twenty page research paper on the transportation of wastes to Yucca Mountain so I'm eager to apply my newly formed knowledge and start FA work on this article. Dun dun dun... — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 08:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about Yucha Mountain?

Seriously, if we make a page for every alternate spelling of every article, the servers might explode! 8*) heh, jk. Just thought it was kinda amusing. R Lee E 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yeah... I was wondering what the RC patrollers were thinking. I'm preparing this article for FA work. Bush's call for new nuclear plants make this a very timely article and I figure it deserves its spot as an FA. I want it to be very accessible. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 08:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New EPA Standard

I removed This is less restrictive than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit.. I believe that the EPA is charged with congress to propose a standard and that the NRC is charged with determining if the standard will be met based on the DOE's application. The standard for nuclear power plants is not relevant here. pstudier 02:48, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

[edit] Update to reflect current information.

I updated the page to reflect the current status of the project. I thought it was important in the introduction to note that the President signed the congressional resolution for the project to move forward. Also in controversy, I added the recent issue of the USGS e-mails. Rogerhenning 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)rogerhenning [rogerhenning@earthlink.net] 03-06-2006

[edit] Added link to March 2006 Senate Environment and Public Works White Paper

I added a link in the "Controversy" section to the March 2006 U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works white paper on "Yucca Mountain" The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet". Rogerhenning 17:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How strange ...

... this talk page doesn't contain one ounce of flamewar o.O Pretty surprising, I had the impression it was a pretty controversial and divisive topic. Good job! :) Flammifer 07:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a matter of Wiki demographics. If the numbers of Nevada residents were equal to the number of tech-heads involved with Wiki, you'd see more fireworks. The anti-Yucca sentiment is not well-represented here, imo, but I'll be happy to be as nice as I can be about it. Bustter 17:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect if someone tried to balance out the article a little (I don't think its especially bad but its not 100% NPOV) that things might heat up a little. Dalf | Talk 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images are already available

There are a great number of hi-res images already available on the DOE site, but they may be hard to find. Should we include a special link so researchers and newswriters have direct access to high quality images? The link is: http://ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/newsroom/photos/index.shtml User:rogerhenning 19:30, 25 May 2006 (PDT)

[edit] Added considerable new information

I added sections on Radiation standards, and added specific descriptions to Stability adding Earthquakes and Volcanism to the existing section that only had Geology. I also added a number of external links to articles by DOE and the State of Nevada. I also created links to ORISE and ORAU because they have been contracted to review the quality of the science. Everyone interested needs to look them over, clean up the english, and add additional clarifing information if I have been unbalanced. [User:Rogerhenning 05:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening date

[1] has leaked information that will be announced on Wednesday, July 19. Simesa 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"a realistic opening date is now September 2025" Not so realistic, as this means 17 years during which further delaying tactics will certainly be deployed. "Earliest feasible opening date" is more like it. The reference provided says 2021 (page 26, not page 3 as the reference states), not 2025, and ackmowledges that it may never open. Bustter (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From the pdf reffed in footnote 1:

Table 4: Best-Achievable Repository Construction Schedule

  • Start Nevada Rail Construction 5 October 2009
  • Construction Authorization from NRC 30 September 2011
  • "Receive and Possess" License Application
  • Submittal to NRC 29 March 2013
  • Rail Access In-Service 30 June 2014
  • Construction Complete for Initial Operations 30 March 2016
  • Start up and Pre-Op Testing Complete 31 December 2016
  • Begin Receipt (Best-Achievable Schedule) 31 March 2017
  • Begin Receipt (More Likely Schedule) September 2020

Source: (LVRJ 2006b; DOE 2006f) Bustter (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA? No Way! needs NPOV

This could never be a feature article, as it entirely concerns The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository, which does not currently exist, and may never exist. Yucca Mountain, as a Wikipedia entry, should concern itself solely with the mountain ridge that is the proposed site of the repository, which does in fact exist, but has no Wikipedia entry, nor even a disambiguation page. To pretend that Yucca Mountain has no existence or importance apart from the repository scheme is non-NPOV. The article itself notes that these lands are regarded as sacred by some Native Americans. For Wikipedia to ascribe no importance to Yucca Mountain other than in terms of this dangerous scheme clearly makes the wiki a tool of the proponents of the scheme. 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (Nevada resident)

Would the NPOV concern be alleviated with the renaming of the current Yucca Mountain article to something along the lines of Yucca Mountain Repository or Yucca Mountain Project, and creating a disambiguation page for Yucca Mountain? Goldry bluzco (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Such steps, while they may not resolve all NPOV issues, would bring NPOV into the realm of possibility. In the current situation, wherein "Yucca Mountain" is identified solely with the repository plan, the article is not something I would endeavor to "improve," given that it is false at its base.Bustter (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If you could add information about the mountain itself, which would make it into a standalone article, then the sections about the repository could be split off more easily. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation of Waste

Other than the short portion of the article on the impacts of transportation, there is currently no mention in the article to the transportation of the waste. There is a wealth of information available from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) concerning both the method of and the route for transport. If there's no objection, I'll add a section to the article in the next couple of days concerning this. Goldry bluzco (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cultural impact" section

This section keeps quoting "Native Americans" as though they were a monolithic bloc of people that all think and act the exact same way. It reads like a bad anthropological study from a century ago. That section needs some serious rewriting - not to mention some citations. Funnyhat (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)