Special report: Energy and the environment.

The safety and future of nuclear power.

NewsHour coverage of: Science, Weather, Environment

Outside Links:
Extra is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites.

Department of Energy

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Economist

Nuclear Energy Institute

Nuclear Control Institute

Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S.)

Not In My Mountain
May 8, 2002

Where does your computer's electricity come from?

Is it from burning coal? Falling water? The sun?

If you live in one of the 31 states with a nuclear power plant, the energy may have come from the center of an atom.

Nuclear power releases less air pollution than burning coal or oil. The by-products of burning fuel contribute to global warming.

However, the by-product of nuclear power is highly radioactive waste that takes hundreds of thousands of years to decay.

Until it decays, nuclear waste releases radiation that can cause birth defects and cancer.

For over 20 years, the United States has tried to figure out a way to dispose of nuclear waste so that it doesn't pose a risk to the public. Currently, more than 40,000 tons of the stuff--a solid, ceramic-like material-- is stored at 103 nuclear power plants in 31 states. The amount increases by 2,000 tons every year.

In February, the Bush administration officially recommended that the United States bury its nuclear waste inside a Nevada mountain. However, environmentalists, several lawmakers and almost everyone in Nevada say that is a bad idea.

With a 306-117 vote, the House of Representatives voted May 8 to support President Bush's recommendation. The Senate will vote later this summer.

Yucca Mountain

Located 90 miles outside the casinos and bright lights of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain is in a remote area filled with rocky hills and valleys.

The land around Yucca Mountain is so deserted the U.S. military used it as a nuclear bomb test site in the 1950s.

It was first considered a suitable place to keep nuclear waste because of the dry climate--less than six inches of rainfall a year.

The Bush administration proposes to store nuclear waste in a five-mile tunnel carved into the mountain.

In a letter to the president delivered in January, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said 12 years and $6.8 billion worth of study shows the Yucca Mountain site is a "scientifically sound and suitable" place to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste.

"I could not and would not recommend the Yucca Mountain site without having first determined that it will ... protect the health and safety of the public," Abraham said.

When the decision was announced, protestors rallied in Washington.

"I totally oppose this. I do not want anything that could affect the health of my wife and two kids coming into my state," said Nevada native Hugh Jackson as he and several dozen protesters chanted "Nuclear wastes, no way!" outside the Capitol. More demonstrations are planned.

The waste needs to go somewhere

The search for a place to store the by-product of nuclear fission, began in 1982. Congress passed legislation that promised to have a storage facility up and running by January 1998.

The Energy Department was assigned the task of finding somewhere to bury the waste. The goal was to find a storage facility that will not leak for 10,000 years.

In the 1980s, the Energy Department looked at three potential sites in Nevada, Washington state and Texas. All but Yucca Mountain were eliminated by Congress in 1987.

The Bush administration says nuclear waste stored in heavy concrete containers deep in the mountain will not pose a threat to nearby residents.

However environmentalists have raised concerns about the possibility of earthquakes or even a volcanic eruption and possible contaminiation of nearby ground water supplies.

These issues are not unique to the U.S. Nearly every nuclear waste disposal program around the world has fallen behind schedule due to scientific uncertainty and public opposition.

France, which gets 76% of its energy from nuclear power plants, is currently studying four separate possible French facilities.

The politics of nuclear waste

No state wants the potentially dangerous waste. Nevada will veto the Yucca Mountain recommendation, but Congress can then override the state's objection and force the project through.

Congress chose Yucca Mountain as the likely storage site during a vote including both Democrats and Republicans back in 1987. However, the issue is now developing into a political fight.

Democrats are portraying the Bush administration's recommendation as another assault on the environment.

Republicans argue that the decision fulfills a government obligation to deal with the waste issue, and improve homeland security.

Bush administration officials say one central site meets "compelling national interests" by consolidating nuclear waste to enhance protection against terrorists.

Is Yucca Mountain the answer?

Nevada lawmakers argue that since it has no nuclear power plants, it should not have to store the potentially dangerous waste material.

The state has powerful allies in the Democratic leadership. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle called the endorsement of Yucca Mountain "unfortunate and premature."

House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt said there "is not nearly enough scientific knowledge to reach a conclusion about the safety of transporting, then dumping, thousands of tons of radioactive, nuclear waste in the state of Nevada."

Gephardt said he would work with other Democratic Leaders in the House and the Senate to overturn the administration's decision "and to safeguard the health of the people of Nevada."

However, many lawmakers joined the nuclear industry in hailing the decision as a major step towards solving a long-standing problem.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert praised the decision. The Republican from Illinois -- the state that has the largest number of nuclear reactors-- said, "Americans deserve the peace of mind that spent nuclear fuel will be consolidated into one secure location rather than scattered across the country in over 130 various sites."

Nevada Senator Harry Reid hopes to convince senators that a single national storage site will mean thousands of trucks and trains will carry hazardous materials through heavily populated areas in 45 states.

Reid's argument, however, may not convince many lawmakers who would like to get rid of the waste that is currently piling up in their own states.

If the current plan is approved, waste could be stored in the mountain as early as 2010. If Nevada suceeds in blocking the administration's plan, Congress will have to start from scratch in its search for a way to deal with the nuclear waste issue.

What do you think? Is the plan a good idea? What would you do instead?