The Department of Energy has announced future sites for nuclear plant development. Some sites already have running reactors, but are scheduled for further development. They are:
Scientists have concluded that burying nuclear waste in a geologic repository would be the safest, most cost-effective and environmentally friendly method of waste disposal.[2] Because there is currently no waste repository in the U.S., nuclear waste is often housed at the plant it was created in. This distributed storage creates both a security and environmental concern – in fact, nuclear utilities successfully sued the U.S. government for failure to provide waste storage, and the government pays damages of about $500 million per year.[3] Plans for a geologic repository deep inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada were submitted in 2008, but the earliest possible opening for the repository would 2020. The Department of Energy estimated a total cost of $100 billion dollars for operation of the repository over the next 130 years.[4]
In early 2009, the Obama administration decided to not include funding for the Yucca Mountain repository in their budget. They cited concerns over the safety of the site – Yucca Mountain was originally chosen by Congress in 1978 because it was believed to be dry and remote enough to store nuclear waste. Since then, water has been shown to flow through the mountain, raising concerns about waste leaching into the water table. Additionally, independent experts have not approved the scientific merit of the site.[5] However, proponents of the project, like Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel, say that President Obama has made the decision to scratch Yucca Mountain on a political, not scientific basis, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- Nevada) opposes the project.[6]
Because the cancellation of government funding for Yucca Mountain means that the U.S. is no closer to having a national nuclear waste repository than it was thirty years ago, a new solution is required of the federal government. This setback may mean that plants without plans for on-site waste storage will not receive licenses necessary for development, delaying their operational start date.[7] The Obama administration has suggested waste be stored at temporary facilities controlled by the government. Despite the cut in funding for Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will continue to review the license for the site. As this process can take upward of four years, it is possible that funding for its development could be restored.[8]
Research by Margaret Rich
