Nevada agency warns Yucca Mountain licensing would pose long-term groundwater, transport and cost risks

Fred Dilger, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, told the joint Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees that the federal licensing effort for a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is legally active but technically and financially problematic. Dilger said the Department of Energy's 2008 license application envisions moving tens of thousands of metric tons of high‑level waste and that the agency expects a decade‑long licensing process if it is funded.

Dilger said the DOE's 2008 license application and final supplemental environmental impact statement propose disposing of about 70,000 metric tons of high‑level waste and that DOE had previously described different site sizing plans. He told lawmakers the license envisions “between 17,000 waste shipments” over the first 50 years and up to 26,000 waste packages moved into underground drifts over a century. “The estimated total cost to construct the repository is $200,000,000,000 in current year dollars, including $8,000,000,000 already spent,” he said.

Why it matters: the agency told lawmakers the geology and hydrology at Yucca Mountain would leave the design dependent on engineered barriers rather than rock to protect groundwater, that transportation routes could expose Nevada communities to routine and accident‑related radiological hazards, and that permitting and defending a license would be expensive. Dilger said Nevada will continue working with the governor's office, the congressional delegation and the attorney general's office to oppose funding for the project.

Key technical and risk claims made by the agency head included assertions that fractured rock and oxidizing groundwater would allow radioactive material to reach the water table that flows toward Amargosa Valley, that the DOE design relies on titanium “drip shields” as engineered barriers rather than geologic isolation, and that the drip shields would require robotic installation because of radiation and heat. “Without these drip shields properly installed and functioning perfectly, the repository does not work,” Dilger said.

Dilger also outlined logistics and transport risks. He said many nuclear plants are not connected by rail, requiring new spurs at “billions of dollars” of construction, and he described potential shipment volumes and routes that, he said, could concentrate shipments through Las Vegas. He warned of routine exposures to workers and the public plus the possibility of releases following severe accidents or deliberate attacks, and he cited national studies and agency models to note potential cleanup and economic‑loss estimates.

Lawmakers pressed Dilger about specific points, including whether railroads would accept the shipments, how railcar design would affect safety and how Nevada could respond. Dilger told the committees that railroads had litigated to avoid carrying nuclear materials but that DOE has developed railcars being tested for compliance with railroad standards; he said those railcars are designed to operate as dedicated trains rather than mixed freight.

Dilger said the state has been preparing for the licensing process — if NRC and DOE funding resumes — including readiness to litigate dozens of licensing contentions and to submit new contentions. He characterized the long‑term process as likely to cost federal agencies and to require sustained Nevada defense efforts.

Ending: Dilger concluded by saying Nevada has sustained a long campaign opposing Yucca Mountain and that state officials will continue to press Congress and federal agencies to “fix this problem” rather than site a repository at Yucca Mountain. He then took questions from committee members.