Conner Varnell cvarnel@linfield.

edu May 13, 2013 Final Essay

Current Public Policy Question: Should the government restart the installation of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain? Previous Public Policy Question: Should the government restart the project of installing a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain? Previous Public Policy Question: Should the government allow energy companies to use Native American land for the purposes of producing commonly-used energy sources?

Table of Contents

Preface Diligence. That word is often used to describe top-tier athletes who have put their time, bodies and emotions on the line in order to reach success. Sports announcers will rave about a certain player after the big game if he or she was the one who seemingly was always in the weight room training, going for runs and was constantly in the film room studying the sport. When I used to hear that word, I would think of Russell Wilson, the quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks. He is the type of guy that some people describe as a robot due to his meticulous preparation he conducts for playing football. Now when I hear the word, I think of every person in my Information Gathering class. The work that we have put in is astounding. I used to feel overwhelmed by essays that needed to be over 10 pages long. Now that seems like a minute task. Coming into this class, I had heard stories of how people felt unbelievably overwhelmed by the workload. Personally, I scoffed at these anecdotes. I have always been taught that no matter what the problem is, hard work can fix it. Therefore, I felt as though no matter what was presented in front of me, I would be able to overcome it through perseverance. Yet his mindset was not enough to be able to properly accomplish the tasks of Information Gathering. Once the class had started, I realized that managing my time would be my greatest foe. I did not realize how busy I truly was until I had already committed to a variety of things. Throughout the last two years of living off-campus, I have struggled financially. I wanted to be able to play football, take difficult classes and pay for my own life in order to support my hardworking mother. Yet I still managed to have a social life. Therefore, I only worked the minimal amount of hours possible in order to pay rent. At the end of every month, my bank account would drop back down to about six dollars. Month after month, this became increasingly

stressful. The idea of having an emergency come about and not having the financial means in order to take care of it was overwhelming. Therefore, once football was over during my third year of college, I decided that I would take on more work in order to better support myself financially. Spring semester of my third year of college began and I realized I was in over my head. The combination of competing in track and field, doing training for football, taking a class as difficult as Information Gathering and working three jobs became a nightmare. Both mentally and physically, I quickly became exhausted. My average day would be to wake up at 5:45 a.m. and train with my football team for two hours. Then, I would go home, briskly eat breakfast, and go to my first class of the day. I would be in class until 12:30 p.m. I would hurriedly eat lunch and go to work at 1 p.m. I would work until 3 p.m. I would then go to my next job at 3:30 p.m. and not get home until 5:30 p.m. I would then go to track and field practice until 7 p.m. Next, I would make dinner and do homework for about an hour until going to work again at 8 p.m. Finally, I would go home and work on homework until falling asleep. It was excessively difficult to go to bed early enough in order to have the proper amount of sleep to let my body heal from sports training while having to stay up late enough in order to get enough schoolwork done. Simply put, I had to choose between sleeping enough in order to properly function and getting my homework done. I often would realize that I was 2 a.m. and that I had football training in four hours. I often would wake up in the morning and realize that I had accidentally passed out from exhaustion without finishing my homework. It seemed nearly impossible to get everything done. Then grades started coming back for Information Gathering. I had one of the lowest grades in the class. Professor Thompson even had to pull me aside multiple times to inform me

of my underachieving performance in the class. I felt demoralized, overwhelmed and unintelligent. It deeply frustrated me knowing that people had countless hours daily to do their homework while I was constantly busy from 5:45 a.m. until 9 p.m. On top of that, I had occurrences with my family that I needed to travel home for in order to take care of. I often felt guilty because I hardly had the proper time in order to make phone calls to my family members in order to support them; I felt like a bad son and grandson. Yet I was able to pull my life together through the use of organizational methods. I realized how important fifteen minutes of free time could be. I began to use a planner in order to schedule when I could use small periods of time in order to get portions of my homework done. Also, the miniscule amount of social life I had went out the window. Friday nights and Saturdays became heavy work days. It felt as though every single day of the week was a work day. But I was able to motivate myself to continue working every day knowing that this was a finite schedule. I knew that in a matter of weeks, it would be summertime. If I could just buckle down and work hard now, I would be able to overcome the biggest challenge academics had ever presented me. I finally started to see the work paying off. My scores on assignments had escalated from an 11 and a 12 to a 19 and an 18. Professor Thompson even gave me praise one day that I had truly turned around my performance in the class. I was beyond ecstatic. This heightened my hopes that I could get through the semester alive and with decent grades. I was able to ride this high all the way until now, just before the final essay of our public policy question project is due. In writing this paper, I learned an incredible amount of information regarding Native American groups, the federal government, the power of rebellion and the nuclear energy industry. The most interesting information that I learned is the relationships between Native

American groups and the federal government. For as long as I can remember, I have felt as though Native Americans have been unfairly overpowered by the colonialism of America. Yet upon doing this research paper, I have had this knowledge undeniably expanded. I read multiple examples of Native American groups being promised certain things through treaties and laws signed by the federal government. Then, the government would seemingly go directly against its own word and subject the Native American group to some sort of negative health and/or cultural effect. When the Native American group would fight against it, the federal government would deny it. How do you fight against someone who makes the rules? These examples opened my eyes to how corrupt some actions of Americas government are and I hope to spend my career fighting against them. The largest improvement I have seen in my writing is my use APA writing style. I have focused so greatly on properly conducting this writing style that I cannot even write or read text message on my cellular telephone without wanting to perfect it with proper grammar. Assignment after assignment, I saw the amount of markings that my professors left for corrections progressively diminishing. Even though not perfected, writing in APA style has become a habit for me and I feel as though it has improved my writing skills. There are a multitude of people I would like to thank. First, my family for supporting me through a time of being overwhelmed. My mother and brother were able to comfort me when I felt overwhelmed with life. Next, my wonderful girlfriend Sofia Webster. She was truly my source of happiness and peace during this time of having an overpowering workload. She managed to put a smile on my face, remind me that this lifestyle is only temporary and she understood that I did not have a lot of free time to be around her. Therefore, she did wonders at relieving stress for me. Finally, I would like to thank Professor Thompson and Professor Whyte.

They were honest, critical and supportive of me during this semester. They were able to motivate me when I was lacking and support me when I had times of crisis. Finally, I would like to thank myself. It feels wonderful to have come this far and I give myself appreciation for that.

Abstract This essay examines if the Yucca Mountain project should restart. Arguments supporting and opposing the project include financial aspects, health issues, cultural impacts and alternative solutions. In 1987, Congress chose Yucca Mountain, NV to be the solution for storage issues of nuclear waste. But in 2010, President Barack Obama and his administration ended the project. Since then, there has been political and public debate if the project should restart. This essay discusses those arguments and their validity. I propose that due to major vulnerabilities and uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain project, it should remain deceased while alternative solutions for storing nuclear waste are developed. One of the main issues of the project is the proposed hazards. Scientists say that are geological and hydrological concerns with Yucca Mountain. There are also issues with the stability of the holding canisters. Finally, there are problems with how nuclear waste would be safely transported to the site. All of these issues suggest that hazardous materials could be spilled into the environment. Another key aspect of the project is how it would affect local cultures such as the Western Shoshone people. This Native American group owns the rights to the Yucca Mountain area and therefore deserves to have decision-making power regarding whether the project should restart or not. In the end, I examine alternative solutions for storing nuclear waste rather than the Yucca Mountain repository.

Introduction Nuclear energy has become an increasingly used method of energy production in America in order to combat the high rates of greenhouse gas emissions created by the fossil fuels industry. Yet there is a growing problem that is caused by this process: Nuclear waste. This waste, which is known as one of the most toxic materials ever created, has been building up ever since the beginning of nuclear energy use by America in the 1940s. In the 1980s, the American government felt as though it was necessary to create a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which required the establishment of a deep geological repository for nuclear waste storage. In 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy selected nice locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites (History, 2007). The president approved three of these sites to be further researched. In 1987, the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was chosen to hold the nations nuclear waste (Native America, 2010). Yet after years of public and political opposition of the project, President Barack Obama and his administration announced the motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application in order to continue constructing the repository. With this decision came more public and political frustration. Since then, there have been attempts to restart the project. There has also been the continuance of strong opposition against the project. The Yucca Mountain project should not restart due to alternative solutions being developed for the storage of nuclear waste and also because of the negative impacts the project would have on various peoples and the environment. This paper will discuss if the Yucca Mountain project should restart. It will review arguments supporting the Yucca Mountain project, opposition toward the project restarting and possible solutions to the nuclear waste issue in America. One of the main aspects of the essay

will be about the impact that the project would have on local Native American tribes to the Yucca Mountain area and their rights to the land. The paper will conclude that the project should not restart because of the threats the project proposes while there are safe alternative solutions that can be further developed. Reasons Why the Yucca Mountain Project Should Restart There are citizens and politicians that feel as though the Yucca Mountain project should restart. The main argument that is made is that the financial investments that have already been put into the project should not be wasted. Over $10 billion from taxpayers has been used since beginning of the repositorys construction at Yucca Mountain (Sensenbrenner, 2010). This money should not be wasted on a half-completed project. Furthermore, Americas utility companies have paid the government more than $22 billion in fees to help build the repository (Beaver, 2010). Therefore, by ending the Yucca Mountain project, it is unfair to those who have donated their financial resources toward the production of it. Hence, the Yucca Mountain project should be restarted to not waste these financial investments. Next, people argue that nuclear energy is clean and sustainable. Therefore, using one mountain in the desert of Nevada seems to be a small price to pay for being able to use a clean energy source. America has depended on the harvesting fossil fuels in order to produce it into energy resources such as gasoline. Yet these methods have negative impacts on the environment because of the carbon emissions created. These carbon particles go into the atmosphere and deteriorate the ozone layer in Earths atmosphere. Yet nuclear energy production creates just a small fraction of the amount of carbon emissions that oil production does (DOEs, 2011). Therefore, nuclear energy will be the core of Americas transition to a clean and sustainable

energy policy (Department of Energy, 2010). In order to help the environment, Yucca Mountain must be sacrificed for storing nuclear waste. Finally, an argument made by those who support restarting the Yucca Mountain project is that certain communities and nuclear energy companies were promised by the government that nuclear waste would be removed from their lands. For example, in Red Wing, MN, the Prairie Island Indian community was told by the government that Xcel Energys nearby nuclear energy facility would remove its waste within 20 years of its existence (Shaffer, 2012). Yet since the government ceased the Yucca Mountain project, the power plant has nowhere to move its waste to (Suzukamo, 2013). Consequently, Xcel applied for a 40-year extension of its license to store high-level nuclear waste at its facility (Shaffer, 2012). The local Native American community the Mdewakanton people have homes that are only 600 yards away from nuclear waste canisters. The group worries that this supposedly temporary nearby waste storage is becoming permanent. Therefore, the group is worried about the longevity of its land and the health of its people. Hence, it is urging the government to follow through with its promise of creating a permanent waste facility to store the nations nuclear waste (Suzukamo, 2013). Due to these concerns, arguments are made that the Yucca Mountain project should restart in order to maintain safe, confident communities and also to hold the government true to its word. Reasons Why the Yucca Mountain Project Should Remain Deceased There is speculation that Yucca Mountain was chosen to hold the nations nuclear waste because of politics, not science. This has left various groups of people unsupportive of the project (Ledwidge, 2013). During the 1980s, the government felt pressure from the public to create a solution for storing the nations nuclear waste. Multiple resolutions were debated. Some of these ideas were to store it in bullet-shaped canisters and dump them in the ocean, launch

them into space or to place them in sheets of ice in the North Pole and the South Pole. These ideas were denied due to practical reasons such as not being able to monitor the canisters (Beaver, 2010). The government decided that a geologic repository burying nuclear waste deep underground would be the safest option for storing nuclear waste. From 1982 until 1987, the government conducted research on multiple sites that would be effective for building a geologic repository at. In 1987, a vote was held by Congress to decide where the site would be. There were three sites to choose from: Deaf Smith County, TX, Hanford, WA and Yucca Mountain, NV. During the time of the vote, the U.S. House of Representatives strongly favored other states over Nevada. Texas had 32 representatives, Washington had 12 representatives and Nevada had one representative. No state wanted to host the nations nuclear waste due to fear of civilian opposition. Regardless of the scientific evidence regarding the safety of each site, members of the House felt as though voting for their own state to host this waste would mean they would never be voted into office again. Therefore, these members were forced to base their decisions off of politics, voting for states besides their own. Nevada, with just one vote, had almost no decision-making power. Therefore, Congress voted for the Yucca Mountain site to be used to construct the nations nuclear repository. Hence, this decision was not based on the scientific research, rather political reasons (Beaver, 2010, Ledwidge, 2013; Native America, 2012). This has left many people opposing the Yucca Mountain project due to questions of the sites actual safeness due to the misconstrued selection process. More than 75 percent of Nevadas civilians want to continue fighting against the Yucca Mountain project due to its unfair selection process (Berkley, 2008). Also, more than 1,000 environmental groups have publically opposed the project due to unclear safety hazards (Native America, 2012). Overall, due to the unfair selection

process of the Yucca Mountain site, there is opposition from the state of Nevada and those concerned with the safety of the environment. Due to the lack of scientific research that was conducted on the site before its selection, the Yucca Mountain project presents a variety of safety concerns to the environment. Geological aspects of the site make it dangerous to store nuclear waste at. The soil that the mountain is made of is called volcanic tuff. Some scientists have concluded that it is not expected to provide an adequate barrier to protect the nuclear waste canisters over thousands of years (Ledwidge, 2013). There are properties of the tuff that makes it highly corrosive, therefore presenting a hazard for the canisters (Strolin, 2005). These scientists believe that the natural cracks in volcanic tuff will allow for water to reach the repository (Black & Lybecker, 2008). Seeming that the canisters will have to remain sturdy for thousands of years in order to protect the environment from toxic waste, the possibility of water eroding them is unpredictable. There are also hydrological concerns with the Yucca Mountain site. There is groundwater that runs beneath Yucca Mountain (Strolin, 2005). If there was a leak in a canister holding nuclear waste, this aquifer would become contaminated. These toxic particles would then be transported to other water sources that supply Nevada and Southern California with resources such as drinking water (Wadewitz, 2013). Water is the most viable way that nuclear waste would be exposed to forms of life around the world. Therefore, by building a nuclear waste repository above a water system, there is the possibility of doing just that. Yet there has been an inadequate amount of research conducted on the groundwater beneath Yucca Mountain. For example, it is unknown if the water level is rising, which would pose threats to the safety of the canisters holding nuclear waste (Ledwidge, 2013). If the water level were to rise high enough over the next 10 thousand years, it would have the possibility of eroding the bottom of the canisters

holding the waste. These possibilities need to be further researched before a possible continuance of the Yucca Mountain project. Furthermore, there are concerns with uncontrollable events similar to the rising of water levels at Yucca Mountain. These events are natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. If a natural disaster were to occur after waste was stored here, it could unleash hazardous materials into the environment (Berkley, 2008). Wadewitz (2013) says that if a volcanic eruption were to occur at Yucca Mountain after nuclear waste had been stored there, it would create some sort of toxic cannon, spewing radioactive chemicals into the environment. Volcanic eruptions have happened at Yucca Mountain and there is no reason for them to not happen again (Berkley, 2008). Earthquakes are an even more likely event to happen at Yucca Mountain. Nevada is the third most seismically active state in America. This is because the Yucca Mountain area is located on top of faults, which are fractures in the Earths crust that allow movement between two masses of stone. The Nevada Seismological Lab records about 10 micro-earthquakes daily of less than a magnitude of two on the Richter scale. As recent as 1992, there was an earthquake near Yucca Mountain that registered at 5.7 on the Richter scale. It substantially damaged building that the Department of Energy was using in the near vicinity of Yucca Mountain (Hadhazy, 2009). Over the course of thousands of years, earthquakes, whether large or small, would likely affect the stability of the canisters holding nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Therefore, due to uncontrollable events such as volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, the Yucca Mountain project poses safety threats to the environment. Another issue with the Yucca Mountain project is its susceptibility of creating harm toward humanity. Johnson (2013) says that the transportation methods that would be used to ship nuclear waste from around the country to Yucca Mountain would unfairly subject millions of

Americans to toxic waste. The waste would be shipped by car and by train. Therefore, major roads and railways would be used to transport the waste. If a spill or attack were to occur in an area of human population, people would be exposed to the radioactive materials (Berkley, 2008). Radioactive particles colliding with the human body damage its biological cells, potentially resulting in cancer or genetic defects in later generations (DOEs, 2011). Therefore, there is public concern that the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain could subject nearly any person in the country to the negative health impacts posed by nuclear waste exposure. Finally, technological aspects of the Yucca Mountain project have not been scientifically researched enough in order for the project to be thought of as dependable. Berkley (2008) says that there have been no canisters created that are undeniably stable and safe. Ledwidge (2013) furthers this argument by saying that there is no way to know if the canisters holding the waste will last over a long period of time. The Yucca Mountain geologic repository was supposed to hold nuclear waste for 10 thousand years, which is the amount of time that scientists believe it will take for the waste to lost its toxicity. Yet the metal alloy that the canisters for holding waste are made out of has only been in existence for about two decades. Therefore, there is no possible way of knowing whether these canisters will remain stable over 10 thousand years if humans have only been able to study the material they are made out of for 20 years. There is no viable way to know if the metal will last this long. Therefore, it leaves considerable room for doubt that the Yucca Mountain project will remain safe throughout its lifespan. Victor Gilinsky, a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who was once at the head of the Yucca Mountain project, said that if the Yucca Mountain project was restarted, scientists would ultimately conclude the site as not being technically sound (Harder, 2011). Overall, the Yucca

Mountain project presents technical issues, possibilities of natural disasters and hydrological and geological concerns that could all lead to exposing the environment to hazardous waste. The Yucca Mountain project also unjustly imposes on Native American groups. Arguably the most effected group is the Western Shoshone Native American people. According to the Treaty of Ruby Valley in 1863, the American government signed that the Yucca Mountain area belongs to the Western Shoshone tribe (Native America, 2012). Therefore, the Shoshone people have the legal rights to use the Yucca Mountain area as they please. It was not until 2007 that the tribe was allowed to give input on the Yucca Mountain project. In relation, the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository site began in 1994 (Rogers, 2007). Therefore, the people who owned the Yucca Mountain area had no choice whether the repository was built on their land. Also, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 says that American Indian people have access to lands and natural resources essential in the conduct of their traditional religion (Stoffle, 2013; Wadewitz, 2013). The Western Shoshone people have traditional religious values toward Yucca Mountain (Endres, 2012). Therefore, these people have legalized reasons to be able to freely access Yucca Mountain. Yet with the implementation of a permanent nuclear waste repository, the area would be accessible only by workers and government officials (Stoffle, 2013). By restarting the Yucca Mountain project, the U.S. government would be breaking its own laws. Another group that would be negatively affected by the Yucca Mountain project is the Southern Paiute Native American tribe. For both the Shoshone and Paiute peoples, Yucca Mountain is an essential aspect of their religions (Endres, 2012; Native America, 2012; Stoffle, 2013; Wadewitz, 2013). Most groups who traditionally lived in the Mohave Desert perceive that they were created there. Because of this, their Creator also gave them a special, supernatural

responsibility to protect and manage the land and its resources. Yucca Mountain is considered a sacred icon of the area. Native American people took shelter here when conditions of the desert became too difficult. The groups praise the mountain for its gifts. The ridgeline atop of Yucca Mountain is symbolized as a slithering snake looking toward the West. The snake represents how the dangerous powers of the desert can become overwhelming at any moment, similar to a snake attack. Yet the snake calmly watches looks toward the West, making sure the sun sets every day. Therefore, the tribes feel protected by the snake. Yet they do not want to upset the power of the snake and its mountain. Hence, the groups treat the land with the utmost respect. Yet the Yucca Mountain project poses threats to the area and these groups fear that the snake of the mountain will become enraged by filling it with toxic waste. Essentially, the holiness of Yucca Mountain for these groups is the same as the holiness of Israel to Christians. Therefore, it should be treated with respect due to the cultural importance the land has to various groups of people (Stoffle, 2013). Endres (2012) says that it is impossible to compare the religious value of the land for these Native American groups and the value the American government has of the land due to it believing it is an ideal place for storing nuclear waste. Seeming that these values are incommensurable, it seems unfair for the United States government to would use the land for its own reasons. The Yucca Mountain project would negatively affect Native American groups not only religiously but ethically as well. Land conservation is an essential ethic in many Native American groups. This is evident through their focus on supporting biotic communities as a whole. These groups believe that every aspect of the environment is critically influential toward other pieces of the ecosystem (Callicott & Nelson, 2004). When leaks occur at nuclear waste sites, the environment is contaminated with toxic waste. The vegetation in the area can die like it

has at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Hanford, 2013). This relationship between nuclear waste and the environment makes some Native American groups oppose nuclear waste storage because they fear that their land will be exposed to deadly toxins (Fahys, 2011; Rogers, 2007 Suzukamo, 2013). There are multiple examples of Native American groups expressing this concern with nuclear waste storage. For example, the Goshute people of Utah oppose the possibility of a nuclear waste facility being built on its land. This is because they want to preserve their homeland for future generations (Fahys, 2011). Another example is the Mdewakanton people publically urging the government to remove nuclear waste away from its land. The group is concerned of possible health and environmental impacts the waste could have (Suzukamo, 2013). The Western Shoshone people have also expressed their opposition toward storing nuclear waste on their land. The tribes chairman, Joe Kennedy, said the group wants to protect the environment, protect the water, protect the land and protect the plants and animals and protect life basically so theres a future (Rogers, 2007). By restarting the Yucca Mountain project, the United States government would be oppressing the ethical beliefs of Native American groups living near Yucca Mountain. Throughout history, the American government has unfairly acted upon Native American groups, subjecting them to violence, health hazards, dishonesty and the loss of their natural lands. For example, even though the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley lawfully gave the Yucca Mountain area to the Western Shoshone Native American people, their lands are surrounded by a nuclear weapons production facility, a uranium-mining operation and a nuclear weapons testing site (Hooks & Smith, 2004; Native Americans, 2007). This has resulted in negative health effects for the tribe due to the exposure to radioactive materials. The Shoshone people have cancer rates that are nearly twice as high as the average American (Hooks & Smith, 2004). Another example

of the government taking advantage of a Native American tribe is evident with the Sioux people. The Sioux nation lawfully owns lands in South Dakota. Part of its lands, the Black Hills, were discovered to have gold in them. The government allowed people to flock to the area in order to mine for gold. These lands were mined beyond the will of the Sioux people even though the land belonged to them. These people, who once had preserved, natural lands near the Black Hills, now do not have this. That area has been transformed into towns that flourish from tourism. There are casinos and museums that are themed to relate to the gold rush (Wadewitz, 2013). The government has taken advantage of Native Americans and their lands throughout history. The Yucca Mountain project is just another example of that. Due to the history of the government overpowering Native American groups, the ethical beliefs of many Native American groups regarding nuclear waste and land preservation and the religious importance of the Yucca Mountain area for the Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute peoples, the Yucca Mountain project should not restart. Solution Even though the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste geologic repository seems to present negative consequences for the environment, life forms and cultures, there still needs to be a solution for storing the nations nuclear waste. It would be ideal to progress technologies that would enable nuclear waste to be harnessed for producing energy and also to be stored safely. Most nuclear power plants store nuclear waste onsite in dry casks. Both European studies and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission state that dry spent fuel storage is safe and environmentally acceptable for a period of 100 years (Ledwidge, 2013). Therefore, seeming that the first nuclear power plant was built in the 1940s, there is still substantial time to allow technologies to develop in order to store nuclear waste more efficiently and safely. One of these

possibilities is reprocessing nuclear waste. Research conducted by Professor Dale Klein shows that 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of used nuclear fuel rods remains available to be reprocessed. That is 19 times the energy already used over the past 50 years from nuclear power plants. Those power plants have provided about 20 percent of the electrical power used in the United States over about 30 years. By reprocessing nuclear waste, America would not produce new nuclear waste from power plants creating nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy would not have to be processed. Reprocessing methods are not only possible but are being used by other countries. These countries include France, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, India and China (DOEs, 2011). Overall, the 70 thousand tons of nuclear waste that has been created in America could be used to create more energy instead of being stored at Yucca Mountain. Even though reprocessing nuclear waste would help turn the hazardous sludge into a positive instead of a negative, there would still be the issue of safely storing the leftover waste. A solution would be to develop a process known as vitrification. Companies such as Kurion and GeoMelt have been attempting to perfect this process (Hayhurst, 2004; Mahony, 2010). Vitrification is a process where liquid nuclear waste is converted into glass (Mahony, 2010). The process uses an electric current to heat nuclear waste to temperatures between 2,552 and 3,632 degrees. As the molten zone grows, it incorporates hazardous materials in it. The high temperature destroys organic materials. The materials are heated over the course of two weeks. Then, they are allowed to cool. This process transforms up to one thousand tons of nuclear waste into harmless, shiny glass lumps. Therefore, the waste can be stored as a solid instead of a liquid. This is a safer storage method because glass does not have the ability to contaminate water systems like liquids do. These methods are used by countries such as Japan and England

(Hayhurst, 2004). Overall, nuclear waste can be harnessed for energy using reprocessing techniques and then safely stored as a solid glass material using vitrification processes. Conclusion The Yucca Mountain project should not restart due to a variety of reasons. First of all, there is opposition toward the project because of the political decisions behind the project. Secondly, there are concerns with the sites safety. The project was not researched and developed properly before a site was chosen and constructed upon. These problems could result in exposing nuclear waste to the environment, therefore damaging the health of life forms. Finally, the project would impose on the cultures of Native American groups who rightfully own the land where the Yucca Mountain site has been constructed. Therefore, since scientists have approved nuclear energy companies to hold waste onsite for around 100 years, there is time to develop alternative solutions for how to safely store nuclear waste. These solutions include reprocessing the waste in order to harness its energy and then conducting vitrification processes in order to turn the waste into glass. This way, nuclear waste can be safely stored as a solid. Overall, the Yucca Mountain project should not restart because of the negative impacts it would have on various peoples and the environment. Instead, alternative solutions should be further developed. Nuclear waste is a toxic substance that threatens any life form it comes across. Yet as the species that created this waste, let us not just bury it in a mountain in order to pass this burden off to future generations. Instead, we should attack this problem head on and develop solutions for how to safely store nuclear waste.

References Beaver, W. (2010, April). The Demise of Yucca Mountain. The Independent Review, 14(4), 535547. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. Berkley, S. (2008). U.S. House of Representatives. Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal. Washington D.C. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: Military & Government Collection. Black, B., & Lybecker, D. (2008). Great debates in American environmental history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Callicott, J. B. & Nelson, M. P. (2004). American Indian environmental ethics. Pearson Prentice Hall. Department of Energy. (2010). Secretary Chu announces Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas nuclear future. Washington, D.C. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Military and Government Database. DOEs plans to abandon development of Yucca Mountain not ripe for judicial review. (2011). Hazardous Waste Consultant, 29(5), 3.1-3.3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. Endres, D. (2012, September). Sacred land or national sacrifice zone: The role of values in the Yucca Mountain participation process. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 328-345. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. Fahys, J. (2011, September 11). Could government search for nuclear-waste site revive Skull Valley plan? The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from LexisNexis. Hadhazy, A. (2009, March 10). Loose nukes: Would earthquakes around Yucca Mountain make it unsafe to hold nuclear waste? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/b8hm8qj

Hanford Nuclear Reservation. (April 14, 2013). Observing the environmental impacts of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, by Conner Varnell. Personal observation and notes. Harder, A. (2011, June 13). Yucca Mountain fight overlooks projects reality. National Journal Daily AM, p. 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Military & Government Collection. Hayhurst, T. (2004, June 21). GeoMelt solidifying presence. Waste and Recycling News, 10(4), 28-30. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. History of Yucca Mountain Project. (2007). Lander County Nevada: Yucca Mountain Oversight Program. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from http://www.landercountynwop.com/historical.htm Hooks, G., & Smith, C. L. (2004, August). The treadmill of destruction: National sacrifice areas and Native Americans. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 558-575. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. Johnson, A. (2013, May 1). Interview by C. Varnell. By phone, from notes. Ledwidge, L. (2013). If not Yucca Mountain, then what? Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Retrieved April 22, 2013, from http://ieer.org/resource/commentary/yuccamountain/ Mahony, M. (2010, April 28). Turning nuclear waste into glass. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/akfyb6g Native America: 25 years ago today, the Screw Nevada Bill was passed. (2012, December 23). Beyond Nuclear. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nativeamerica/ Native Americans: Uranium mining/ nuclear testing/ nuclear dumping. (2007). Friends of the Earth. Retrieved March 19, 2013, from http://www.motherearth.org/h-rights/america.php

Rogers, K. (2007, July 13). Tribe allowed to give input on Yucca Mountain project. Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7B. Retrieved from LexisNexis. Sensenbrenner, J. (2010). U.S. House of Representatives. Dont abandon Yucca Mountain. Washington D.C. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Military & Government Collection. Shaffer, D. (2012, December 27). Tribe to get hearing on Prairie Island waste concerns. Star Tribune, 1D. Retrieved from LexisNexis. Stoffle, R.W. (2013, April 9). Interview by C. Varnell. By phone, from notes. Strolin, J. C. (2005, April 28). Safety problems at Yucca Mountain. The Washington Times. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Sociological Abstracts. Suzakamo, L. (2013, January 8). Red Wing: Indian community presses for nuclear waste storage solution. St. Paul Pioneer Press. Retrieved from LexisNexis. Wadewitz, L. (2013, March 12). Interview by C. Varnell. From notes.