Key Issues
Frequently Asked Questions: Yucca Mountain and Used Nuclear Fuel Management
Q: How have scientific studies supported Yucca Mountain as the used nuclear fuel repository site?
A: The scientific evaluation, encompassing more than 25 years and $10 billion of scientific, environmental and engineering studies, was completed in 2002. DOE summarized this work in several scientific reports, which served as the basis for the 2002 decision to approve Yucca Mountain as the site of the repository. These reports form the foundation of DOE’s June 2008 application to the NRC for a license to construct the repository. (The scientific reports and the application are available at www.doe.gov.)
This work also incorporated input from extensive public review and comment on DOE’s preliminary findings. The reports state that the repository will perform well within the safety standard for Yucca Mountain set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The results of this work show that for 10,000 years the largest expected annual radiation dose near Yucca Mountain would be 0.24 millirem—a small fraction of EPA’s annual 15-millirem limit for the facility1. Even for periods as long as 1 million years, DOE’s analysis shows that the annual radiation dose in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain will be 0.9 millirem.
DOE’s final supplemental environmental impact statements have shown negligible environmental impacts associated with the repository at Yucca Mountain and the transportation of material to the repository.
Q: Why does the nuclear energy industry support building and operating the national repository for used nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain?
A: The nuclear industry bases its support for Yucca Mountain on clear and fundamental principles:
- the sound scientific conclusion that the proposed repository will protect public health and safety
- the importance of the project to national energy, environmental and security policies
- the industry’s commitment to safety in managing used nuclear fuel.


