Check out the links below to learn the latest information about the Yucca Mountain federal repository for nuclear waste. Thanks to NIRS for compiling and sharing this list!

Short NIRS fact sheet (2014): “Why Yucca Mountain Would Fail as a Nuclear Waste Repository

Recent blog post on GreenWorld by Michael Mariotte: “Oops. Not So Fast on Yucca Mountain

Slides from talk given by Steve Frishman of Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, “The Role of Geology at the Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository

An extensive report on nuclear waste from the perspective of Citizens in the State of South Carolina was published in 2013 by NIRS’ Suzanne Rhodes. In “Nuclear Waste in South Carolina: An Issue Brief for Citizens,” there is a chapter on Yucca that was up-to-the-minute at that time about a year ago.

Yucca Mountain: What’s Really There” is a short document from the State of Nevada comparing what has been done already with what would have to be done in the future in order for Yucca Mountain to take any waste (there is no waste there now).

One of the most comprehensive “news wires” on radioactive waste is maintained by the State of Nevada – daily!

The state has a huge archive of work it has done on Yucca and HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE WASTE TRANSPORT – much of which is still up to date.

This source document from the NRC – VOLUME FOUR of the Safety Evaluation Report was posted by NRC Staff and states:

  1. DOE does not control the land at the site
  2. State of Nevada has denied water rights for construction or operation.

NIRS adds that:

  1. The State of Nevada has OPPOSED this site (no “consent”) AND
  2. The Yucca proposal cannot meet the safety regulations it claims to meet (EPA radiation standard) unless the Titanium Drip Shields are, in fact installed (See this article by former NRC Commissioner Victor Galinski).
  3. DOE claims the drip shield installation would happen 100 years out when there is no budget, there is not technology for robotic installation and the radiation levels would be too high for workers. Since when does such a thin story constitute “Fact” that an NRC decision to license could rest on….talk about “waste confidence!”