Introduction
Nuclear Power

During the 1960's and 1970's, the United States nuclear industry expanded rapidly, as fears of a looming end to oil and gas reserves fueled construction of alternative energy sources that were plentiful domestically.  It was not until after the small incident at Three Mile Island made national headlines and caused widespread panic that this construction binge began to slow down.  By the time that the former Soviet Union experienced the world's largest nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, the United States nuclear industry was, for the most part, finished with starting and building any new reactors.  America had over 100 nuclear reactors, most of them providing electricity for the commercial sector.  As time passed, and no further major accidents were reported, the general public's fear of a problem with a nuclear reactor seemed to lessen.

However, the impact to the environment from nuclear energy does not just come from the possibility of a nuclear meltdown.  While American nuclear reactors have proven to have a much better safety record than either coal or natural gas powered reactors, there is still a potentially large environmental problem with them.  For the last 30+ years, these nuclear reactors have been creating large amounts of high-level radioactive wastes.  Congress, in the early 1980's, recognized that this was going to be both an environmental and national security problem (this high level waste contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear bombs).  With the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, they mandated that a national waste repository would be built that would take the waste from commercial reactors for storage.  The owners of the commercial reactors would pay for this facility with a surcharge on the electricity that they generated.  

Controversy

Unfortunately, this repository has yet to be built.  The Waste Policy Act mandated that the Department of Energy select, build, and oversee the waste repository.  Initially, the DOE investigated nine different sites as possible locations.  In 1987, Congress amended the Act to limit the site search to the Yucca Mountain area of Nevada unless studies revealed that the site was unsuitable.  The main reasons for picking this site are that 1) it's in a remote location, 2) it has very dry climate (less than 6 inches of rainfall a year), 3) it has an extremely deep water table, and 4) the rock in the location is volcanic, which would be good for absorbing radiation.  However, many of the people that live in the area do not want this waste buried in their area.  They state that the site is geologically and hydrologically unstable and has been chosen for politically expedient reasons.

In 2002, the Bush Administration endorsed the Department of Energy's recommendation that the building of the repository proceed.  This action was vetoed by the governor of Nevada, as he was allowed to do under the WPA.  However, Congress overrode his veto during the summer of 2002.  This cleared the way for construction to begin on the site, which is expected to cost $58 billion and should start taking its first shipments by 2010.

Besides the people in Nevada, there has been a growing concern by Americans across the country about radioactive waste being shipped through their communities.  As it currently stands, this waste will have to be shipped through parts of 43 states in order to get it to Yucca Mountain.  The majority of it will be shipped in containers via trains and trucks.  People are concerned about the safety of the vessels in which the waste is being shipped in the event of an accident or a terrorist attack.  

The following websites will give you more information about the state of nuclear waste in the U.S. and the controversy that surrounds it.

Nuclear Issue

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management  
EPA      
Radioactive Waste Transport Maps

Pro-Yucca Mountain Repository site

The Study Committee

Anti-Yucca Mountain Repository site

Citizen Alert

After reading through these and any other sites that you might find, answer the following questions:
 

• Is the current situation of storing the waste in containers that are onsite at the nuclear reactor facility safe?  If you lived near such a site (and you might ), would you feel safe?
• Should all of the high level waste from commercial reactors be stored in one place, or should it be divided into smaller lots that are stored at various locations throughout the U.S.?  Why?
• Are the claims of opponents of the Yucca Mountain facility legitimate?  Despite their claims, should the waste still be stored there?
  
• How close does a proposed shipment of the waste come to your home?  How safe do you feel about such shipments?