11/27/07         NRC Assesses Low-Level Waste Challenges

The impending curtailment of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) acceptance at the Barnwell facility in South Carolina has prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to perform a strategic assessment of its regulatory program and update its guidance on LLW management.   

Hospitals, universities, and power plants in 39 states currently rely on Barnwell as the only facility in the country that will dispose of their Class A, B, and C low-level wastes (classified in order of escalating radioactive hazard/concentration).  Currently, three disposal sites accept commercially-generated LLW.  The EnergySolutions facility in Clive, UT accepts an overwhelming majority of the country's Class A waste, while Class B and C wastes are delivered to Barnwell or a site in Richland, WA.  The Richland facility, however, only accepts waste from 11 western states, and in June 2008, Barnwell plans to discontinue acceptance to all but three compact states (SC, CT, NJ).   

This dwindling disposal environment sparked NRC action to analyze the low-level waste situation in the country and update its guidance on storage, monitoring, security, and disposal for the first time in 17 years.  A strategic assessment crafted with industry, state, and interest group insight evaluated 20 NRC activities and resulted in seven high-priority task recommendations, including updating or creating new LLW guidance on:

• Extended-term storage on-site;
• Alternative disposal options; and 
• Classification of waste according to public health and safety risks.

Although low-level radioactive waste generally posses low security risks in terms of terrorist interest, there is some concern with higher-concentrated radioactive materials found in sealed-sources and gauges.  The NRC plans to include new security requirements related to terrorism in its final assessment expected out in the fall of 2009.

On a positive note, some officials assert that numerous storage facilities across the nation capable of properly handling LLW for long periods, including the Utah site and several in Arkansas, remain largely unused.  These locations or potentially Department of Energy disposal sites may offer some future relief to the current forecast of increased LLW storage at multiple user sites around the country.

NRC Summary of Strategic Assessment (letter)
Strategic Assessment of the NRC's Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program (full document)
Also referenced: Nuclear Waste News, "NRC Eyes Tighter Security for Facilities That Can't Send Waste to S. Carolina," Vol. 27, No. 23, Nov. 19, 2007, pgs. 187-188.

11/03/07          NAS Report Recommends Scale Back of GNEP Reprocessing Plans

The National Academies (NAS) National Research Council released a report commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE) to prioritize programs under its quickly expanding Office of Nuclear Energy.

The Office of Nuclear Energy has focused significant effort in recent years on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program to develop reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and fast reactor technologies in the U.S. and provide with partner nations a dependable source of nuclear fuel to encourage a cleaner generation of energy in developing nations.  The report’s recommendations related only to the reprocessing portion of GNEP and did not consider international aspects of the program.

One of the NAS report’s key findings was that the GNEP R&D program should not go forward.  The report concluded that “domestic waste management, security, and fuel supply needs are not adequate to justify commercial-scale reprocessing facilities, and there is no economic justification to proceed.”  Fifteen of the 17 members of the NAS committee agreed, however, that a slower-paced reprocessing research program such as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative should continue.  They recommend that the program  concentrate on R&D and not a major deployment of commercial-scale reprocessing facilities unless it is proven to make clear economic, national security, or environmental sense. 

The NAS report also recommended that the Office of Nuclear Energy’s top priority be facilitating new nuclear power plant start ups, which the committee found to be lagging behind schedule due to funding gaps.  The recommendation highlighted the importance of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, a joint DOE-industry effort that helps identify potential sites for new nuclear power plants, progresses advanced light-water reactor designs, and assists in the regulatory process for licensing new reactors.

The report also recommended promoting the efforts of Generation IV, which studies high temperature next-generation nuclear power plants, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, which aims to generate hydrogen from nuclear energy.  The NAS committee also found that funds for upgrading facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory were inadequate for supporting the Office of Nuclear Energy’s ongoing mission there, including the attraction of high-caliber researchers and industrial users.

DOE’s assistant secretary of nuclear energy, Dennis Spurgeon, responded to the report by stating that the NAS panel was indeed criticizing plans created under an earlier version of GNEP, many of which have since been changed and match recommendations in the report.  GNEP is no longer on the fast-track for commercial-scale deployment, Spurgeon suggested, but will continue to involve industry in considering various reprocessing technologies and fast reactor engineering concepts.  Industry sources were critical of the NAS committee’s make-up and believe the report’s finding are diminished by a lack of significant commercial experience on the panel.

Warren Miller, who headed the NAS committee on GNEP for the report, acknowledged that changes undertaken in the GNEP program since its inception in early 2006 have addressed some of the committee’s concerns.  But Miller cautioned that there is still great uncertainty in GNEP (financial needs, character of the reprocessed waste, fluidity of the program, etc.), and therefore a less-aggressive approach and the inclusion of independent peer reviews along the way would be a wiser path forward.

NAS Report, “Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program”
Report in Brief
NAS Press Release

October

10/22/07         DOE Supplements its Environmental Impact Statement for Yucca Mountain

 

The Department of Energy (DOE) released draft supplements this month to its 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada [Yucca Mountain FEIS].  The supplemental drafts may be categorized into two large issue areas, one addressing the general repository environmental impacts and the other addressing railroad impacts.

The Draft Repository Supplemental EIS (SEIS) updates findings of the 2002 analysis of environmental impacts of the repository design and its associated construction and operational features, based on design developments of the past five years.  It evaluates:

• Potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, monitoring, and eventual closure of the repository;
• Potential long-term impacts from the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste;
• Potential impacts of transporting these materials nationally and in the State of Nevada; and
• Potential impacts of not proceeding with the proposed action.

A significant addition in the supplement is the analysis of environmental effects of a repository housing 135,000 metric tons of waste, almost double the original analysis of 70,000 metric tons (based on the statutory limit provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.)  A Congressional Budget Office official recently testified in support of DOE's assertion that the 70,000 metric ton limit envisioned by Congress in the 1980s will not provide adequate capacity for the total amount of waste under the federal government's responsibility over time. 

The Draft Repository SEIS concluded that "the potential impacts associated with the current repository design and operational plans are similar in scale to impacts presented in the Yucca Mountain FEIS" of 2002, and that post-closure radiation dose projections would result in "no adverse health effects to individuals." 

The second general category covered in the recently released EISs deals with the construction and operation of a railroad in Nevada to the Yucca Mountain repository.  The Draft Nevada Rail Corridor SEIS and the Draft Rail Alignment EIS investigate and compare impacts of the Caliente and Mina corridors, updating information provided in the 2002 FEIS and reviewing specific segment locations within the corridors. 

The Rail EISs concluded that constructing and operating a railroad along either the Caliente or Mina route would result in "similar but generally small impacts to natural, human-health, social, economic, and cultural resources."  The analysis found that the shorter Mina route would cost approximately 20 percent less to construct and incur fewer environmental disturbances than the longer Caliente route, but DOE acknowledged the decision of the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council to withdraw from consideration it's land, which includes part of the Mina route.  DOE therefore identified Caliente as its preferred alternative.  The Rail EISs also stated a preference for allowing shared use of the rail line, making it available to commercial shippers of general freight.

 

DOE will host eight public hearings from mid-November through early December in Nevada, California, and Washington, D.C. to provide the public an opportunity to engage DOE representatives in one-on-one discussions.  The public comment period ends January 10, 2008, and DOE expects to release the final Supplemental EISs in advance of it's Yucca Mountain license application submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2008.

 

 

Draft Supplemental Yucca Mountain Repository EIS (including summary and related documents)
Draft Supplemental Rail Corridor and Rail Alignment EIS (including summary and related documents)
Also referenced: Nuclear Waste News, "DOE Examines Doubling Yucca's Size, Incurring 35 Percent Higher Costs," Vol. 27, No. 21, October 22, 2007.

 

September

9/28/07           First Nuclear Reactor License Application in almost 30 Years Submitted

NRG Energy filed a combined construction and operating license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this week to build two new nuclear reactors in Texas, ending almost three decades without such new proposals.  The New Jersey company seeks to build two General Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactors 90 miles south of Houston.  The facility would cost between $5.4 and $6.7 billion and provide 1350 to 1600 megawatts of electricity.  Application fees to the NRC are estimated to cost $24 million. 

Progressive growth in electricity demand, rising prices of natural gas, and growing public concern over climate change (coupled with likely future taxes on carbon-emitting energy sources) have inspired interest in a nuclear energy renaissance.  The NRC has increased hiring in anticipation of an expected 28 filings for nuclear reactor permits within the next few years; the costs for the prospective sites estimated to exceed $90 billion. 

The latest push for increased nuclear power is not without its challenges.  In 2003, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that at least 50% of loans for new nuclear facilities would default, and in 2005 industry leaders warned Congress that it would likely require billions of dollars in loan guarantees to get rolling.  Congress responded with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, granting $12 billion in tax breaks and other benefits, and the fiscal year 2008 energy bill could include further loan guarantees.  The Department of Energy announced this week that it would contribute $2 billion in federal risk insurance for losses resulting from regulatory or legal delays to the first six nuclear facilities underway. 

Proponents of the latest surge for nuclear power claim that it is an optimal source of emissions-free energy and that need for government assistance will decrease when a carbon tax is passed, making nuclear power cost-competitive with coal generators.  Proponents also claim the new advanced boiling water reactors (already in use in Japan and Taiwan) demonstrate significant advances in safety, construction time, capital and operating costs, and performance compared with the reactors of the 1970's.

Opponents cite unpredictable cost over-runs, long lead times, and an inability to significantly lower overall greenhouse gases as reasons to resist the re-invigoration of the nuclear industry.  According to some energy expert calculations, nuclear power facilities can only make a significant impact on global warming if 21 new plants are built annually around the world (about five in the U.S.) over the next 50 years.  The Energy Information Administration predicts that, given current policy, a total of 53 will be built by 2056, while many existing nuclear plants will have been decommissioned by then.   

CS Monitor article
NY Times article
ABWR info
Nuclear Renaissance Challenges Piece
Boston Globe Pro-Nuclear Opinion Piece

 

9/24/07           State/Federal Battles Over Water for Yucca Mountain Project Continue

After a long series of exchanges in a landmark legal battle over the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada, the Department of Energy (DOE) will be allowed to continue its use of Nevada water for borehole drilling and scientific data-collection through "Phase 1" operations - to end this month.  Allowances for water use thereafter are uncertain, and Federal Judge Roger Hunt who presided over the case has strongly urged both parties to reach consensus. 

Until the spring of 2007, DOE had been using local groundwater to cool and lubricate its drilling operations intended for seismic monitoring and geologic testing required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) construction application process.  On June 1^st, Nevada State Engineer Tracy Taylor ordered DOE to cease and desist using Nevada's water toward those ends, as the state had originally understood the drilling operation to be quite limited.  Initial DOE estimates figured eight-ten holes, whereas DOE incrementally raised the figure to 80 holes for the two-phased project. 

In a ruling on August 31^st, Judge Hunt upheld Taylor's order to cease and desist the use of Nevada water for drilling or data collection.  DOE replied that it would cease using water for "Phase 2" of its project, but continue its use during the current phase, which they claimed was not referred to in Taylor's order of June 1^st.  Hunt agreed to this claim on September 21^st, and DOE continued operations through the month.  

The Energy Department was to drill its last hole for "Phase 1" at the end of September, for a total of 35 holes during the first phase.  DOE will determine whether data collected to that point will be sufficient to support its surface facility plans in the license application to the NRC expected next June.  

Las Vegas Review Journal article
Also referenced: Platts NuclearFuel, Volume 32/Number 19/September 10, 2007 and Volume 32/Number 20/September 24, 2007.

 

9/14/07           Barnwell, SC Tests for Tritium Leaks

The State newspaper reported in August that 30 monitoring wells near the Barnwell low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in South Carolina had shown contamination of tritium (a cancer causing isotope of hydrogen).  The state-owned facility is run by Chem-Nuclear (a subsidiary of EnergySolutions in Utah) and monitored by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

State legislators considered legislation this spring (H3545) to extend the deadline related to the volume and regional acceptance criteria for disposing of low-level radioactive waste at the Barnwell facility.  Lawmakers ultimately voted down the bill, but said they were not told of contamination concerns at committee hearings before voting on future expansion of the landfill.  The maps detailing tritium plumes had been labeled "proprietary" and therefore exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) had more than three dozen tests of private drinking wells conducted by an independent laboratory after the news report was released.  The tests found only trace amounts of tritium (a naturally-occurring element), the levels of which were well below the Environmental Protection Agency's standard of tritium per liter of water.  State officials therefore concluded there is no public health risk, but the DHEC will continue testing wells every three months to assuage further concerns of residents.

Agency officials, board members, state legislators, and environmental groups continue to disagree on the level of controversy the landfill and this purported shielding of information have caused.  The South Carolina legislature may take up a Barnwell extension bill again next year.   

Background:
Barnwell opened in 1971 and has since disposed of approximately 28 million cubic feet of dry, solid-form low-level radioactive waste (such as lab clothing, construction soil, filters from nuclear reactors or medical facilities) from around the country.  At 235 acres, this site is currently 90% at capacity. 

Since passage of the federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Amendments Act of 1985, states have been encouraged to enter into compacts with neighboring or regional states to create a single disposal facility for that compact.  In 2000, South Carolina joined the Atlantic Compact with Connecticut and New Jersey, and unless the state legislature passes legislation authorizing otherwise, as of June 2008, Barnwell will only be allowed to accept waste from those three states. 

 The NRC categorizes low-level radioactive waste (LLW) into Classes A, B, C, and Greater than Class C, in order of escalating radioactive hazard/concentration.  Currently, there are three disposal sites accepting commercially-generated LLW.  The EnergySolutions facility in Clive, UT accepts an overwhelming majority of the country's commercial Class A waste, while Class B and C wastes are delivered to sites at Richland, WA and Barnwell, SC.  The Richland site, however, only accepts waste from 11 western states.  If Barnwell closes its doors in 2008, the majority of states will be without disposal access for higher-activity LLW.

Proponents of the facility remaining open to all states tout its unique status in providing this critical service to the nation, and the revenues it provides to the county and state in the millions of dollars each year.  Opponents claim a shallow water table in South Carolina and the potential for contamination if the landfill does not curtail acceptance as scheduled. 

Forbes article
Savannah Morning News article
The State article

 

August

8/23/07           DOE Awards $3.8 Million to 38 Universities to Boost Nuclear Curricula

The Department of Energy (DOE) released a list of 38 universities from around the country that will receive $100,000 each to support nuclear-related programs.  The payout is related to the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to encourage the expanded use of nuclear energy while closing the fuel cycle to reduce waste and proliferation concerns with advanced recycling technologies.

The GNEP University Readiness awards may be used to upgrade laboratories and research reactors and augment faculty strength in nuclear-related fields, to name a few.  Although these are one-time payouts, the awards will enable these universities to compete for future R&D projects with the Energy Department.  The readiness awards are part of $15.2 million DOE has spent on university nuclear energy programs this year.

There have been great concerns in the nuclear industry, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and within the Energy Department that nuclear-related university studies have fallen off in the last few decades as reactors have aged, some have been decommissioned, an no significant new construction/investment has been seen in the U.S. nuclear industry since the 1970s.  As the Bush administration pushes for a nuclear renaissance to enhance energy security and provide a clean source of reliable energy though, the demand will be great for a qualified nuclear labor force to support such a resurgence.

As Dennis Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy explained, "Supporting our educational institutions is essential to ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in development of safe and secure nuclear technology.”

DOE Press Release (list of chosen universities)

 

8/14/07           House Bill to Change Funding for Yucca Mountain and Assure Waste Confidence Introduced

 

A bi-partisan bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on August 3 to "enhance the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and to ensure the expansion of clean nuclear power."

Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ed Towns (D-NY) sponsored the bill, HR 3358, which specifically targets two hindrances to progress in the Yucca Mountain project and the expansion of nuclear power.  The bill addresses use of the Nuclear Waste Fund (a utility-ratepayer fund of contributions collected over the past two decades for disposal of nuclear waste) and the assurance of waste confidence for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decisions when considering the licensing of nuclear power plants.  Both pieces have been introduced and debated in Congress for years and have gained particular emphasis in the last two years with similar policy proposals from the Bush administration that have gone nowhere.

The Nuclear Waste Fund provision would reclassify nuclear waste fees paid by utilities into the fund from "mandatory" to "discretionary" in the federal budget, in order to adequately reflect their offset of congressionally-approved discretionary appropriations.  This provision also adds infrastructure activities as an approved expenditure of Nuclear Waste Fund dollars.  The Nuclear Waste Fund balance currently approaches $20 billion, with an additional $750 million paid in annually.

The waste confidence provision would require the NRC to deem that sufficient capacity will be available for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel when considering whether to permit the construction or operation of a nuclear reactor.

Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce where it will remain at least until Congress comes back into session from its August recess on Tuesday, September 4.

HR 3358 (must type in bill number for search)

 

June 

6/20/07           Committee Directs DOE to Plan for Interim Storage of Decommissioned Reactor Waste

A congressional report accompanying the Energy and Water Development Appropriation bill, allocating $494.5 million for the Yucca Mountain project in fiscal year 2008, instructed the Department of Energy (DOE) to create a plan to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from decommissioned commercial nuclear reactor sites across the country.

The House Appropriations Committee report stated the committee's belief that SNF at operating reactors ought to stay in place, referencing an American Physical Society study which found that moving spent fuel twice, from a reactor to interim storage sites and then to Yucca Mountain, would be too costly.  Besides, operating reactors will continue to house spent fuel, which will need to be guarded and managed.  For waste at the nine decommissioned reactors however, removal of the spent fuel would allow them to close.

The Committee report directs the Department to create a plan to "take custody of spent fuel currently stored at decommissioned reactor sites to both reduce costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer" (due to DOE's breach of contract to take the fuel by 1998) and to build public confidence in a federal waste management policy.  The report specifies that DOE should consider consolidating the waste "either at an existing DOE site, at one or more existing operating reactor sites, or at a competitively-selected interim storage site."  The report added that the 11 sites vying for spent fuel recycling facilities under the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership could be part of this competitive process. 

Appropriators also used the report to express their thoughts on a bill the Bush administration proposed last year and again this session.  Lawmakers stated their disapproval of language in the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act dealing with Waste Confidence, which would remove from NRC consideration the "availability of sufficient repository capacity" when licensing new nuclear reactors.  Other aspects of the Administration's bill, including removal of the statutory limit of 70,000 metric tons of waste at Yucca Mountain, were supported in the report. 

House Appropriations Committee report
Also referenced: Platts NuclearFuel, Vol. 32 No. 13, June 18, 2007, pg. 3

 

6/11/07

The U.S. Supreme Court decided earlier this year not to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from June 2006 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must consider the environmental impacts of terrorist attacks at a proposed spent fuel storage facility in California under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Since the high court decided not to review the ruling, the NRC complied with the lower court's requirement to complete a revised environmental study.  The Draft Supplemental to the Environmental Assessment for Diablo Canyon's independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) was released in May.  It found no significant impact from potential terrorist attacks to the construction and operation of the ISFSI, as the security and design requirements already in place provide adequate protection against any potential attack on dry cask storage of spent fuel.

The question now becomes what impact this court decision will have on the NRC's review process for other nuclear power plant applications, including those requesting renewal of operating licenses which are set to expire in the near future.  The granting of license extensions will result in increased waste and the need for expanded on-site storage while ambiguities persist as to the opening of Yucca Mountain, a federal permanent repository for the final disposition of reactor spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes.  Historically, NRC license renewal reviews looked into how well a plant had aged (most pushing 40 years in existence) to ensure the facility was safe to continue operations, but did not consider storage or emergency planning factors related to terrorist strikes. 

The NRC is currently considering an extension of New Jersey's Oyster Creek reactor license (as well as reactors in Michigan and Mississippi) and has so far determined that the decision in the Ninth Circuit does not apply to pending requests for renewals outside of its jurisdiction.  The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, however, has requested that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals review jurisdictional issues.  New Jersey officials favor NRC consideration of terrorist attacks when determining the fate of Oyster Creek's license renewal application, which would extend the life of the plant 20 years to 2029.

Utah officials are also using the Diablo Canyon decision to urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject an NRC license granted for interim nuclear waste storage at a Private Fuel Storage site on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians reservation in their state.  When the NRC reviewed this application, it did not consider the environmental impacts of a possible terrorist attack.

Uncertainty about future NRC requirements for licensing new nuclear reactors as a result of various court decisions have raised concerns for industry members planning to answer the Bush administration's call for a nuclear renaissance.  If Circuit Court decisions regarding review requirements according to the National Environmental Policy Act are found to conflict in different jurisdictions, this will raise the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately consider and decide on the issue. 

NRC Diablo Canyon links

Also referenced:
Nuclear Waste News, "Appeals-Court Split on Storage Reviews Could Go to Supreme Court," Vol. 27 No. 11, June 4, 2007, pages 93 and 95.
Platts NuclearFuel, "Low risk of attack on casks, NRC says in updated Diablo EA," Vol. 32 No. 12, June 4, 2007, pages 11-13.

    

           NRC Licensing Requirements Differ Based on Court Jurisdiction

May

 

5/24/07          Domenici Reintroduces Legislation to Accelerate Nuclear Waste to Yucca Mountain

 

Senator Pete Domenici (NM) and 11 cosponsors reintroduced a bill to accelerate the movement of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The "Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Act" (NU-WAY), S.37, is the same bill Domenici introduced last year, which never made it out of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that he chaired.  The senator acknowledged the tough road ahead for this bill given the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hails from Nevada and has been steadfast in his commitment to block any legislation that would lead to the development of a repository in his state.  Domenici nevertheless emphasized the importance of the repository to the growth of nuclear power, which he believes could provide much greater capacity of clean and affordable energy to people across the country.

The bill addresses several components to progress action on the project which are supported by the Bush Administration and particularly the Department of Energy (DOE), who is responsible for taking ownership of SNF and HLW and disposing of them at Yucca Mountain.  S.37 would dramatically change current law regarding the management of nuclear waste by requiring the establishment of an on-site surface facility at Yucca Mountain for interim storage.  This surface facility could potentially begin accepting defense waste upon completion of an environmental impact statement, and commercial waste from nuclear reactors after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues a construction permit.  This could occur by 2011, six years before DOE's "best achievable" projection of 2017 for permanent waste emplacement in Yucca Mountain.

The urgency for such legislation has grown as utility lawsuits against DOE for breach of contract in failing to take nuclear waste from their sites by 1998 are beginning to require significant payouts.  Utility ratepayers have met their side of the obligation under federal law to pay fees into a Nuclear Waste Fund for over 20 years, but DOE's lack of receipt has required power companies to personally finance the installation and operation of waste storage facilities on their own commercial sites.  Domenici supports interim storage as a way to remove the waste from reactor sites and limit DOE's liability.

The proposal outlined in Domenici's bill would require DOE to submit a License Application to the NRC for the surface storage facility in 2008, along with the application for the permanent repository.  The NRC would have 18 months from that date to decide on the surface facility application, and four years for the permanent repository.  Domenici's legislation also contains elements addressing reprocessing of spent fuel under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).  DOE would determine how much waste would be sent to reprocessing plants for recycling, which Domenici believes is an integral part of waste management if a nuclear renaissance takes root. 

Although S.37 includes many provisions of the Administration's Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act, also reintroduced this year, such as: land withdrawal, dismissal of the 70,000 metric ton statutory limit for the amount of nuclear waste that may be disposed at Yucca Mountain, authorizing DOE to begin construction of some non-nuclear related infrastructure ahead of an NRC license, Nuclear Waste Fund budgetary changes, and congressional waste confidence - several controversial provisions were omitted.  In particular, Section 7 of the Administration's original bill, which would have preempted state, tribal, and in some cases Department of Transportation requirements for the shipping of nuclear waste, is not explicitly addressed in Domenici's NU-WAY bill. 

Bill link
Also referenced: Environment and Energy Daily online; Lucy Kafanov, "Nuclear Waste: Domenici, Craig offer bill to move Yucca project along," May 24, 2007.   (subscription required)

 

 

5/22/07           Vermont Legislature May Reconsider On-site Storage of Nuclear Waste

Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin may introduce legislation next year to review a decision allowing temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry casks at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.  The decision to permit construction of the storage site was made over a year ago by the Vermont Public Service Board based on the determination that such storage would not threaten public or environmental health.   

Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, David O'Brien, is concerned that rehashing the storage issue will distract legislators from deciding whether to extend the facility's operating license, which expires in 2012.  State law requires power plants to request license extensions at least four years before expiration, after which a series of public hearings and studies must be conducted to determine the economic and environmental effects of extending operations.  

While the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has authority over the site's license extension, state law allows the legislature to determine the plant's ultimate fate.  Senator Shumlin wants to resolve how Vermont Yankee's nuclear waste will be handled before addressing whether to extend the site's operating license for an additional 20 years. 

Supporters of on-site storage and license extension argue that the plant generates 1/3 of the state's power, which if shut down in a few short years will leave the state clambering to provide its citizens with clean and affordable energy.  Opponents say that the environmental review process should be more thorough and receive greater attention, particularly as the storage site is located about 210 feet from the Connecticut River. 

On a related note, before adjourning for the year on May 12, state lawmakers passed a climate change-related bill (H.520) that would support "Efficiency Vermont," a program that educates homeowners and businesses on practices to conserve electricity and heating fuels.  Funding for the program would come from a marked increase in Vermont Yankee's electrical generation tax, which the governor opposes and may veto.

VT State Law (Extension of Nuclear Plant Operations)
News Article (Main)
News Article (H.520)

 

5/14/07           Bill Addresses GNEP Nuclear Waste Storage

Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio introduced the Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act, a bill that would set limitations on storage at proposed recycling facilities under the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

GNEP is an international nuclear power program initially outlined by the Department of Energy (DOE) in February 2006.  According to the Department, "as part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, GNEP encourages expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while minimizing proliferation risks, and [reducing] the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel before disposal in a geologic repository." 

Eleven sites around the country were chosen in November 2006 to receive GNEP grants to conduct siting analyses for possible integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.  One such site was the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, an area which Congresswoman Schmidt represents.  In her re-election bid last fall, Schmidt came under fire for supporting Piketon's consideration in the GNEP program when plans for needed storage of nuclear waste at a potential recycling facility there had not yet been detailed.

Rep. Schmidt's bi-partisan bill, HR 2282, seeks to quell fears that involvement in the GNEP program will result in sites becoming permanent radioactive waste dumps, by stating that no waste may be stored at a site until a recycling facility is under construction, and that that waste may not be retained for long-term storage.

Sponsors of the bill hope Piketon will be selected as an eventual GNEP site because of the billions of dollars projected to be spent over the lifetime of the project, much of which will go to high-paying jobs in their districts.  The Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence received about $674,000 this year to complete the site analysis for DOE.  The group submitted a report to the Department on May 1, which is under consideration at this time.

Bill link (must insert HR2282)
News article

 

  

April

4/23/07           California Legislation to Renew Nuclear Plant Construction Fails

California Assembly Bill 719, which would have removed the state's ban on new nuclear power plants, died in the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee last week.  AB 719, sponsored by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, would have rescinded the moratorium California enacted in 1976 on the construction of new nuclear power plants until the federal government identifies and approves a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW). 

In 2002, President Bush designated and Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the permanent geologic repository for HLW and spent nuclear fuel, but development has been delayed from the original 1998 deadline due to persistent legal, technical, and political obstacles.  Current estimates identify 2017 as the earliest possible date the site could begin operations. 

Assemblyman DeVore touted his bill as a way for California to meet growing energy demand while limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses, which contribute to global climate change.  The bill's opponents counter that radioactive waste poses a danger to the public and environment, that there is currently no operating disposal facility where nuclear plants may send their spent fuel, and that the plants could become attractive terrorist targets.

Before the Natural Resources Committee voted on the bill last week, Chairwoman Loni Hancock urged the state to first look at "safe alternatives" before turning to nuclear, saying, "We've just started looking at solar energy potential, wind energy potential ... and new alternative fuel sources."

California currently has four nuclear reactors in operation at the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre power plants.  As of January 2005, the state ranked 8^th among the 31 states with nuclear capacity in the U.S.

Eleven states, including California, have enacted state laws requiring that a regulatory commission make certain findings regarding the potential for disposal of spent nuclear fuel before new nuclear power plants may be constructed.  Several states are currently considering whether to repeal these moratoria.

Before AB 719 was introduced this session, a group of Fresno businessmen started an investment group to build a new facility in the San Joaquin Valley in Southern California.  John Hutson, leader of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, said that the group would continue to work on the development of the new facility, and suggested they might raise an initiative that would allow state voters to repeal the ban.  Following the defeat of his bill, Assemblyman DeVore said that he too would continue to push for the expansion of nuclear power in California.

AB 719
San Francisco Chronicle Article
Energy Information Administration California Nuclear Profile
Also sourced:  WI Legislative Council Staff memorandum to Members of the Special Committee on Nuclear Power

 

4/13/07           GAO Report Suggests U.S. Could Improve LLW Disposal by Following International Examples

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that examines low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal practices in other countries to identify ways to improve the American system.  The report investigated whether other countries:

• Have databases of LLW inventories;
• Provide for "the timely removal of higher-activity LLW" from the site of generation;
• Provide disposition options for all classes of LLW; and
• Require generators of LLW to "have financial reserves to cover waste disposition costs."

Leading generators of LLW in 18 countries were studied.  GAO found that most of the countries have databases of LLW inventories, provided for removal of higher-activity LLW in a timely manner, and had disposition access for all levels of waste.  The report also stated that half of the countries required generators to maintain reserves to cover potential costs. 

Concerns are rising that LLW disposal capacity in the Unites States may not be adequate in the near future as existing disposal sites begin to close, and a potential surge in nuclear reactors could significantly increase the amount of LLW generated.  In the report, GAO also points out past statements by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that non-utility generators of LLW (such as medical facilities and universities) are ill-equipped to handle storage themselves.  This may force them to cut back on use of radioactive materials, limiting the many beneficial products and services they provide. 

The NRC categorizes LLW into Classes A, B, C, and Greater than Class C, in order of escalating radioactive hazard/concentration.  Currently, there are three disposal sites accepting commercially-generated LLW.  The EnergySolutions facility in Clive, UT accepts an overwhelming majority of the country's commercial Class A waste, while Class B and C wastes are delivered to sites at Richland, WA and Barnwell, SC.  The Richland site accepts waste from only 11 western states, and Barnwell is scheduled to cut off access to states outside the Atlantic Compact, which includes South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut, in July 2008.  Unless the current arrangement is changed, the majority of states will be without disposal access for higher-activity LLW.

In the U.S., at least 15 million cubic feet of LLW were disposed of in 2005.  The GAO concluded that the United States could improve its LLW disposal system by adopting the practices it observed in other countries, and presented its findings to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in its report, "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: Approaches Used by Foreign Countries May Provide Useful Lessons for Managing U.S. Radioactive Waste." 

GAO Report
Report Highlights

 

March

January   

1/29/07           Low-Level Waste in Utah to Rise?

Utah's Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee unanimously passed a bill that would allow a low-level radioactive waste dump in the state to change the volume of waste it may accept at the site without seeking the legislature's or governor's approval.

EnergySolutions owns the commercial radioactive waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah that accepts nothing higher than Class A low-level waste, which holds the lowest concentration of radioactive materials.  The site is currently limited to one square mile, but the company seeks to increase acceptance of waste by stacking it higher on that allotted one mile (from its current 54 feet to 83 feet).  SB155 would allow the company to make changes to its Section 32 site within its current legal operations without needing legislative or gubernatorial approval.  The state's Department of Environmental Quality, however, would still need to review and accept any amendments to EnergySolutions's current license.

The bill was reported favorably out of committee on January 24^th by the committee's chair, Senator Darin G. Peterson, also the lead sponsor on the bill.  Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble is a co-sponsor of the bill, which he believes merely places into law one of the recommendations the state's hazardous and radioactive materials task force, which he sat on, proposed when originally considering the site.

Last year, Utah's statehouse prepared for another struggle regarding the EnergySolutions facility.  When the company proposed expanding the site to two-square miles, the governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr., announced his intention to reject it outright.  A commercial waste review process had been enacted in 1990 that requires the approval of local and state environmental regulators, the legislature, and the governor to establish or expand waste facilities in the state.  A bill was introduced giving the legislature the right to veto the governor's ban on waste issues, a right they have with virtually any other piece of legislation.  The bill, SB70, passed both houses and was subsequently vetoed by the governor.  It returned to the Senate, which overrode the veto, but was not reconsidered in the House.  By that point EnergySolutions had withdrawn its plans for expansion given the negative political climate, and the legislature adjourned for the session without resolving to the matter.

The current SB155 could be seen as a consensus bill to appease all parties, but opposition is still apparent.  A former county commissioner and member of the state's Radiation Control Board, Patrick Cone, stated his concern that this bill would mean, "no public oversight, no elected accountability, and nothing from the legislature" as to what transpires at the site.  But the three commissioners from Tooele County, where the disposal site resides, support the bill, which has fairly broad bi-partisan backing.

Bill text
Bill status
News Article
EnergySolutions website
SB 70

1/26/07           NRC Must Consider Environmental Impacts of Terrorist Attacks on Spent Fuel Storage Facility

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must consider the environmental impacts of intentional attacks at a proposed spent fuel storage facility in California under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The NRC had argued that the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the storage facility, which is intended to house spent nuclear fuel from the Diablo Canyon reactors in San Luis Obispo, is so improbable and speculative that it does not warrant considering those attacks in an environmental impact statement.  Intentional attacks on nuclear facilities are taken very seriously, however; the NRC regularly evaluates threats on such sites during drills and inspections and has used its authority under the Atomic Energy Act to enhance security since September 11, 2001.

Mothers for Peace, an interest group who brought the original lawsuit against the NRC for not holding a hearing to examine the plausibility of an attack, argued that the storage plan, which includes 140 casks located in close proximity on a hillside near the Pacific Ocean, made the site a vulnerable and appealing target for terrorists and therefore worthy of attack consideration.

Since the high court's ruling not to review the lower court's decision, the NRC has stated its intention to promptly determine how best to comply with that decision and incorporate a potential terrorist attack's environmental implications under NEPA before awarding Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) a license to operate the storage facility.  PG&E has expressed its intention to continue construction on the site, but will not begin storing fuel there until receiving the final NRC go ahead. 

Because the Department of Energy has failed to live up to its contractual obligation to take spent fuel from reactors by a 1998 deadline and has no near term strategy to do so, Diablo and most other plants around the country are currently housing about five times the waste their facilities were designed to manage, requiring additional storage.  Diablo Canyon reactors are licensed for another 20 years, and ten applications are pending for license renewal (up to 40 years) at other facilities nationwide.  Under today's scenario of no final disposal site being ready to accept spent fuel in the near future, on-site storage will be necessary if the nuclear power industry is to continue operations as expected.

The NRC is currently considering an extension of New Jersey's Oyster Creek reactor license, and there are assumptions that the court's decision on Diablo could have far-reaching implications in this and other nuclear facility renewal projects.  Industry members seeking to build new reactors in response to the Bush administration's call for a nuclear renaissance may also feel an impact if additional environmental considerations require greater expense and time during the NRC application and review process.      

News Article
Nuclear Waste News; Volume 21, No. 2; January 26, 2007; pages 11-13.
Platts Nuclear Fuel; Volume 32, No. 3; January 29, 2007; page 15.

1/23/07           NRC Commissioner Questions Yucca Mountain Prospects

Ed McGaffigan, the longest serving commissioner in the history of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), has spoken out against the likelihood of ever completing the Yucca Mountain repository project. 

Constant legal and regulatory hurdles have stalled development of the site since Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, which identified Yucca Mountain as the sole location for a characterization study of its practicality as a permanent repository.  The Department of Energy (DOE) completed a viability assessment in 1998, which found Yucca Mountain to be a suitable disposal area.  This determination led in 2002 to a recommendation of the site by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, designation by President George Bush, and approval by the U.S. Congress.  Many factors, including litigation requiring a revised Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) radiation standard, have delayed DOE's license application to the NRC for construction of the repository at Yucca Mountain.

McGaffigan felt free to speak his mind on the troubled project after announcing his plan to retire as soon as his replacement could be found and confirmed.  Some questioned why the commissioner, who has served with the NRC since 1996, has never stated this dire prediction before.  McGaffigan has expressed frustration with the project, but his most recent comments, including an insinuation to scrap the entire idea of housing a repository at Yucca Mountain, were the strongest to come from any official this close to the project. 

"I think Yucca Mountain has been beset by bad law, bad regulatory policy, bad science policy, bad personnel policy, bad budget policy throughout its history," McGaffigan said.  "It may be time to stop digging, and it may be time to rethink…  Each year that passes, we are not going to get any closer to Yucca under the current circumstances."      

In criticizing progress at the Yucca Mountain repository, the commissioner specifically pointed to Congress's inability to provide legal and budgetary support, lack of host state buy-in, and the administration's choices of unqualified appointees to lead the project at DOE.  McGaffigan supports running the Yucca Mountain project via a non-partisan board of directors with corporate-style unemotional and professional long-term managers.

DOE spokesman Craig Stevens reacted to the commissioner's comments with a sentiment that McGaffigan's retirement is welcome given the need for a fresh perspective at the NRC.  The NRC regulates commercial use of nuclear materials and will determine the safety of operating the repository when DOE submits its Yucca Mountain license application, expected by June 2008.

E&E News Article (subscription required)
Las Vegas Review Journal Article

1/17/07           GNEP Strategic Plan Outlined

DOE released the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Strategic Plan on January 10, which highlights policy principles and implementation criteria/technology before detailing an action plan for fulfilling the goals of the project.

According to the plan, GNEP seeks to encourage world-wide use of nuclear energy while diminishing weapons-grade byproducts and addressing waste disposal problems.  The project would "develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies [to]…provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden…and without making available separated plutonium."

The Strategic Plan outlines implementation factors of the GNEP program, including:

• Criteria - fuel cycle criteria necessary to accomplish GNEP goals;
• Technology - available technology and that requiring development; and
• Action plan - defining industry and government roles in the short-term and more broadly over the life of the project.

Criteria in determining GNEP's ability to meet its stated goals include whether the technology developed for the entire fuel cycle accomplishes peaceful use of nuclear energy on a global scale without proliferation risks.  This involves "cradle to grave" fuel services such as assuring fuel supply to international partners who agree not to enrich uranium themselves, and increasing the limited capacity (volume and heat load) of a repository for disposing of nuclear waste by recycling it into reusable fuel.

Technology requirements detailed in the plan involve creating three facilities through the coordination of federal government, industry, and international partners and their resources.  The three facilities include: a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced reactor to burn the recycled fuel (for energy and to reduce the burden on repository capacity limits), and a research facility to develop improved fuel cycle technology to enable creation of the first two facilities.  Industry's role will involve commercial scale design of the first two facilities in preparation for the technology which the national laboratories will produce in the third facility.

As the plan indicates, "at the core of this effort will be the development of a sound, achievable business plan."  Short-term actions include gauging what technology, policy, and business obstacles exist and how best to address those.  One key aspect will be laying out a roadmap for moving laboratory-scale technological advancement toward commercial-scale viability by tapping industry's engineering expertise.  Another short-term step will be preparation of a programmatic GNEP environmental impact statement to include siting studies of potential host locations for future recycling centers and/or advanced reactors (see 1/08/07 news summary below).

In June of 2008, the Secretary of Energy will need all of the information this plan proposes to gather over the next year and a half (technological, environmental, and business feasibility of the project) to determine GNEP's fate - whether the government should continue investing money and resources into the project.

Congress has been critical of GNEP since its introduction in early 2006 for its lack of a definitive path forward, and has therefore shown reluctance to fully fund the project.  The House passed funding of $125 million for GNEP for fiscal year 2007, half of the president's budget request.  Because Congress failed to complete its appropriations process, however, several departments, including Energy (which GNEP falls under), will likely be forced to work this year under 2006 funding levels.  GNEP was not allocated funds for that period, but can dip into its predecessor's, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, much smaller kiddy of $79 million.  The Strategic Plan warns that "Prospective partners await congressional action on the GNEP budget and will in part gauge the responsiveness of their actions by it."       

GNEP Strategic Plan
DOE Press Release

1/09/07           South Carolina Legislature May Address LLW Extension

EnergySolutions, operator of the Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in South Carolina, may seek a deadline extension from state lawmakers to allow the site to continue accepting waste from around the nation.  Barnwell opened in 1971 and has since disposed of approximately 28 million cubic feet of dry, solid-form low-level radioactive waste (defined by radioactivity per mass or volume).  At 235 acres, this site is currently 90% at capacity. 

Since passage of the federal Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Amendments Act of 1985, states were encouraged to enter into compacts with neighboring or regional states to create a single disposal facility for that compact.  In 2000, South Carolina joined the Atlantic Compact with Connecticut and New Jersey, and as of June 2008, Barnwell will only be allowed to accept waste from those three states. 

Legislators may be asked by supporters of the landfill to reconsider this deadline in favor of business as usual for an extended period.  Proponents of the facility remaining open to the nation tout its revenues to the state in the millions of dollars each year.  Opponents are concerned with the shallow water table in South Carolina and the potential for contamination if the landfill does not curtail acceptance as scheduled. 

There are only three facilities around the country which accept and dispose of commercial low-level waste: Barnwell in South Carolina, Richland in Washington State, and a private-sector EnergySolutions site in Utah.  The Richland facility only accepts waste from its Northwest Interstate Compact and the Rocky Mountain Compact, while EnergySolutions in Utah (similar to Barnwell) is open to any state not in a compact with an available landfill.  The Utah site, however, cannot accept any low-level waste that is greater than Class A, which holds the lowest concentration of radioactive materials.  Barnwell currently accepts Classes A, B, and C (the highest concentration still permitted disposal at a low-level facility).         

News Article
Barnwell Website

1/08/07           DOE Announces GNEP Environmental Study

On Thursday, January 4, the Department of Energy (DOE) posted a Notice of Intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in the Federal Register.  This notice allows the public to review and comment on the programmatic and project-specific proposals outlined by DOE before the environmental study begins.

GNEP is an international nuclear power program initially outlined by DOE in February 2006.  According to the department, "as part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, GNEP encourages expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production while minimizing proliferation risks, and [reducing] the volume, thermal output, and radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel before disposal in a geologic repository."  The PEIS intends to examine the environmental impacts of this project and any of its potential alternatives.

DOE anticipates analyzing 13 sites in the PEIS as potential locations for one or more of the three types of facilities to be created under GNEP.  According to DOE, the three facilities include:

• Nuclear fuel recycling center, which would separate spent nuclear fuel into reusable and waste components and then manufacture new nuclear fast reactor fuel using the reusable components;
• Advanced recycling reactor, which would destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel while generating electricity; and
• Advanced fuel cycle research facility, which would perform research and development into spent nuclear fuel recycling processes and other advanced nuclear fuel cycles.

Eleven of the sites will mirror those selected last November as recipients of GNEP siting grants (see 11/30/06 summary) and the other two will be DOE sites that are potential candidates for the advanced fuel cycle research facility. 

Because the 2006 congressional session ended without passage of several fiscal year 2007 appropriations (the first time GNEP dollars were budgeted) and the new Democratically-controlled Congress intends to fund those programs with a continuing resolution based on '06 dollars until fiscal year 2008, doubts have arisen about GNEP's prospects in the year ahead.  DOE's spokesman, Craig Stevens, attempted to revive optimism for GNEP with the newly announced PEIS, but acknowledged that "the continuing resolution has slowed the progress of GNEP and limited both industry involvement and international participation."  Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is slated to determine whether the administration should go forward with the program in June 2008.

DOE is accepting comments on the PEIS through April 4, 2007 (extended to June 6, 2007).  In conjunction, they are hosting 11 scoping meetings around the country over the next two months:

Oak Ridge, TN                        February 13
North Augusta, SC                  February 15
Joliet, IL                                 February 22
Hobbs, NM                              February 26
Roswell, NM                            February 27
Los Alamos, NM                      March 1
Paducah, KY                           March 6
Piketon, OH                            March 8
Pasco, WA                              March 13
Idaho Falls, ID                        March 15
Washington, DC                      March 19

 

GNEP NOI PEIS
DOE Press Release
Also referenced E&E News PM online (registration required): Mary O'Driscoll, "Administration set to launch GNEP environmental study."  January 4, 2007; E&E Publishing, LLC.

1/02/07           Canadian Repository Proposal Met with Resistance in U.S.

In the search for a permanent repository for its growing volume of nuclear waste, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has proposed investigations into the establishment of a disposal facility within the Great Lakes region of Ontario, bordering the United States.

The Ontario proposal would establish an underground disposal site for low- and intermediate-level wastes (defined by radioactivity per mass or volume) less than one mile from Lake Huron on the U.S.-Canada border.  Under the proposal, nuclear plants throughout Ontario would send waste to an on-site facility at the Bruce nuclear power complex, approximately 120 miles northeast of Detroit, Michigan. 

While far from set in stone, the idea has encountered opposition from Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak and other interest groups and individuals in the U.S.  Stupak, who has been a proponent of nuclear power and is slated to become the leader of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations when Congress reconvenes this week, has been outspoken in his discomfort with the safety uncertainties related to the proposal.

"How foolhardy to have this on the shores of Lake Huron," said Stupak in a recent interview with The Detroit News.  "How do you clean up (nuclear contamination) in water?"

Representative Stupak has already expressed his desire to hold hearings on the proposal once the 2007 Congress convenes. 

Canada's need for a permanent repository mirrors the situation facing the United States.  In Michigan, all three active nuclear power plants, and the decommissioned Big Rock facility, are currently keeping their waste in on-site interim storage as a result of the federal government's inability to accept the spent fuel.

This has become a familiar scene at nuclear plants across the country as the debate over the federally designated repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada has continuously delayed development and operation of the site.  Under the current "best achievable schedule," Yucca Mountain would begin accepting waste in 2017, however, this timeframe does not take into account likely roadblocks resulting from litigation or funding shortfalls expected with the change in congressional leadership following the 2006 elections.

News Article
News Article

 2006 

December 

12/14/06         Nebraska State Legislature Funds Nuclear Waste Cleanup

In late 2004, the University of Nebraska signed an agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remediate radioactive and other contamination at its Agricultural Research and Development Center.  The location near Mead includes a former federal weapons facility, the Nebraska Ordinance Plant, which became a Superfund site in 1990. 

The US Army Corps of Engineers has spent millions of dollars for soil and groundwater remediation from the bomb-making facility the federal government operated there during World War II and the Korean War.  The university, however, is responsible for the waste it buried or exposed the land to in the 1970s and 80s, including radioactive and other hazardous wastes and pesticides.

The total cost of the university's cleanup project could range between $6 and $7 million depending on which remediation option the EPA selects, removing the waste or capping it.  Whatever the expense, millions of dollars would certainly have severely strained the university's total budget, especially considering they had already spent $1 million on a site survey.

Although Nebraska's governor did not include funds in the budget for this cleanup project, the state legislature agreed to appropriate $4.2 million from the general fund and transfer another $2.7 million from the state's Environmental Trust Fund.  Both the EPA and the university's project managers prefer the more expensive but final remediation route of excavating, packaging, and shipping the contaminated soils and materials off-site.  This is a more plausible option with the state legislative funding assistance.

The first phase of the university's cleanup project is expected to begin early in 2007.  There are two other potentially contaminated areas on the site, which the university will use its own funds to research in the new year.

 

 

Lincoln Journal Star article
Also referenced Nuclear Waste News, Vol. 26, No. 23, Nov. 27, 2006, pg. 229.

 

 

 

12/10/06         International Fusion Project Agreement Signed in France

An international agreement between 30 nations has been reached that aims to eventually use the process of nuclear fusion to generate energy.  Under the agreement, $12.8 billion will be devoted to the establishment of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) at Cadarache, France, outside of Marseille.  The signing concluded months of friction between France and Japan over who would host the project. 

ITER will attempt to replicate the process by which stars—including the Sun—generate energy, combining atoms at extremely high temperatures.  Traditional nuclear power plants have instead produced energy by splitting atoms, referred to as fission.  The fusion process for producing energy has not to this point been successful because scientific advances have not been able to generate the necessary heat without burning more energy than would ultimately be produced.    

But with the current alarms swirling around fossil fuel use - including global climate change, foreign dependence, and pricing - many countries are now willing to take assertive steps and invest the money required to develop technology that could create energy through nuclear fusion.  Producing energy via nuclear fusion versus nuclear fission is attractive in that it has the potential to generate massive amounts of energy with lower-level, shorter-lived radioactive waste than that which results from the fission process.

"The growing shortage of resources and the battle against global warming demand a revolution in our ways of production and consumption," explained French President Jacques Chirac.  "We have the duty to start research that will prepare energy solutions for our descendants."

United States Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman echoed these sentiments regarding the significance of the agreement, saying that the United States is "Proud to be part of this partnership, and to join in the pursuit of nuclear fusion as a source of clean, safe, renewable and commercially deployable energy for the future."

Other observers were less enthusiastic about the signing of the ITER agreement.  Critics of the project point out that construction will cost more than $6 billion, and another $6 billion will be required for operations over the next 20 years - with no guarantee that the project will result in viable energy-producing technology. 

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred.

Forbes Article Link
ITER Link
Also referenced Nuclear Waste News, Vol. 26, No. 23, Nov. 27, 2006, pg. 224.

November

11/30/06         DOE Announces 11 Recipients of GNEP Siting Grants

On Thursday, November 29, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the selection of 11 sites across the United States that will receive grant funding to conduct siting analyses for possible integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.  For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated up to $20 million for these studies.

Fourteen applications were initially submitted for GNEP siting grants, of which twelve were chosen to be reviewed under criteria included in the Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement from August 2006.  Two of these twelve applications were consolidated into one proposal because each was related to the Hanford facility in Washington. 

Of the 11 sites chosen, six are DOE owned and operated:

1.	Atomic City, ID	EnergySolutions, LLC
2.	Barnwell, SC	EnergySolutions, LLC
3.	Hanford Site, WA	Tri-City Industrial Development Council/Columbia Basin Consulting Group
4.	Hobbs, NM	Eddy Lea Energy Alliance
5.	Idaho National Laboratory, ID	Regional Development Alliance, Inc.
6.	Morris, IL	General Electric Company
7.	Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN	Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee
8.	Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, KY	Paducah Uranium Plant Asset Utilization, Inc.
9.	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, OH	Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, LLC
10.	Roswell, NM	EnergySolutions, LLC
11.	Savannah River National Laboratory, SC	Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties

With the funding distributed by DOE, the 11 grantees will conduct site characterizations related to hosting facilities needed in the recycling of spent nuclear fuel (SNF).  Information in studies of non-DOE sites will likely include analysis of site and nearby land uses; demographics; aquatic and riparian ecological communities; terrestrial plant and animal habitat; threatened or endangered species; historical, archaeological and cultural resources; geology and seismology; weather and climate; and regulatory and permitting requirements. 

The development of SNF and high-level waste recycling to reduce the volume of waste requiring final disposal is an important component of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which is part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative.  Recycling is considered particularly critical if a nuclear energy renaissance takes root, since even at the current rate of production there will be enough waste around the country to fill the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.   

"As our economy grows, so will the need for a reliable, emissions-free energy generation," said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon in a statement.  "That is why we are pleased that so many communities across the country are interested in hosting the initial facilities necessary to support this exciting project."

The GNEP program has not been free of criticism, however.  Among the chief concerns of the program's critics is the possibility that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will make it easier for terrorists and enemy nations to obtain the materials necessary to develop nuclear weapons.  Proliferation concerns played a significant role in stopping reprocessing in the US when it was first initiated in the 1970s.  Questions also loom as to the expense of the yet to be developed technology which GNEP aims to use to prevent weapons' grade byproducts.

Significant written contributions to this summary by Brice Kindred, NCSL Denver

DOE Press Release
Dallas Chronicle Article

 

11/8/06           DOE Extends Public Comment Period and Adds Scoping Meeting for the Yucca Mountain EIS

The Department of Energy (DOE) has scheduled one additional scoping meeting to the original three, and extended the public comment period for the Supplemental Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The Supplemental EIS will expand on the "Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada," which was released in February 2002. 

DOE made similar adjustments to the EIS for the planned rail line connected to the Yucca Mountain repository.  A sixth public scoping meeting has been planned for November 27 in Reno, Nevada. 

In April 2004, DOE announced the selection of the "mostly rail scenario" for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.  At the same time, the Department announced its intentions to examine the Caliente corridor for the potential construction of a rail line to the facility. 

During the subsequent public scoping meetings, DOE received suggestions that the Department examine the Mina corridor as a possible alternative to Caliente because of potentially lower costs due to existing rail lines and terrain more favorable to construction.  After considering the route, DOE eliminated it as a viable option because it would require crossing the Walker River Paiute Tribe's reservation, who had informed DOE in 1991 that it would not allow the shipment of nuclear waste across their land.

In May of this year, however, the Walker River Tribal Council agreed to allow DOE to include an analysis of the Mina route in the EIS.  This prompted DOE to include a detailed examination of the Mina route as an alternative to the Caliente corridor in the current Rail Alignment and Final EIS, which is currently under review and public comment.  

The public comment period for each EIS has been extended by 60 days and will run through December 12, 2006. 

Upcoming Rail Line EIS Scoping Meetings:
Monday, November 13, 2006
4 p.m to 7 p.m
Goldfield School Gymnasium
Hall & Euclid
Goldfield, Nevada

Tuesday, November 14, 2006
4 p.m to 7 p.m.
Hawthorne Convention Center
932 E Street
Hawthorne, Nevada

Wednesday, November 15, 2006
4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Fallon Convention Center
100 Campus Way
Fallon, Nevada

Joint Rail line and Supplemental EIS Scoping Meeting:
Monday, November 27, 2006
4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
UNR-Lawlor Event Center
1500 North Virginia Street
Reno, Nevada

 

Written by Brice Kindred, NCSL Denver.

Yucca Mountain EIS links
Caliente Corridor EIS links

October

September

9/29/06           UPDATE to 8/24/06 Summary on MN On-Site Storage

8/31/06           Federal Government Pays Utility for Failure to Take SNF

 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) received $34.9 million from the federal government this month as the result of a January 31, 2006 ruling in the Court of Federal Claims holding the Department of Energy (DOE) in breach of contract.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, followed by a contract between DOE and the utilities in 1983 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, established DOE's responsibility for taking spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from utility sites by 1998.  In return, utility ratepayers have contributed into a Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) dedicated to the creation of a permanent waste repository. DOE has yet to meet its 1998 deadline for accepting SNF, forcing individual plants to find and pay for storage themselves.

TVA is the first utility to receive a court-ordered award out of the 66 cases that have been filed.  Nine of these cases have been dismissed, while another three have been settled out of court.  The most notable of these settlements occurred two years ago when Exelon Corporation received $80 million to cover storage costs they had already incurred, with yearly payments to follow for additional expenses. 

If the TVA court decision sets precedent, the high number of waste storage cases filed against the federal government could add up to a costly payout - estimates suggest as much as $50 billion.  The TVA decision, along with a 2000 ruling that DOE had indeed broken their contract, have convinced many utilities that they have a favorable chance of winning their respective cases.  

For many individuals following the outcome of the TVA case, the decision highlights the need for Congress and DOE to complete a permanent repository, or develop an interim storage solution that would allow the government to take the waste off of the utilities' hands.  Settlements in these waste storage cases are paid out of the federal judgment fund, not the NWF to which utility ratepayers have contributed over $20 billion so far.  In the case of TVA, because the judgment covered damages up to September 30, 2004, there is nothing that prevents them from filing another lawsuit in the future to recover damages after that point.

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred, NCSL in Denver, CO.

Court Decision
Payment Article
Decision Article

 

8/24/06

 

Earlier this month, Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick ruled favorably on Xcel Energy's 2005 Certificate of Need submission requesting authorization to store nuclear waste at its Monticello plant, 40 miles northwest of the Twin Cities. 

Judge Mihalchick recommended that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which is expected to consider the issue next month, allow Xcel to store spent nuclear fuel in 30 steel and concrete, above-ground containers at the facility.  In his decision, Judge Mihalchick determined that although reprocessing and/or transporting waste off-site to a federal repository are not viable options at this time, the Monticello plant is an important source of affordable energy for Xcel customers and therefore must continue operation, requiring on-site storage.

Xcel filed a license renewal application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March, 2005, for a 20-year extension on its original license expiration of 2010.  The amount of on-site storage requested by Xcel in its certificate of need to the Minnesota PUC would cover the additional waste created over this extended period.  The Minnesota PUC's decision on whether to allow the storage will be final, barring any state legislative action on the issue.   

On two occasions the Minnesota legislature authorized storage at Xcel's Prairie Island facility, which uses techniques similar to those proposed at Monticello.  In 1993, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that on-site storage should be characterized as "permanent" and therefore require authorization from the state legislature under the 1977 Minnesota Radioactive Waste Management Act.  The legislature passed a law in 1994 allowing Xcel's predecessor, Northern States Power, to store 17 containers of waste at the Prairie Island plant. 

By the end of the 1990s, however, it became apparent that Prairie Island would be forced to close several years before its license expired due to limited storage capacity.  The state legislature responded with a 2003 special session authorizing the storage of up to 48 casks as set by the original federal license.  The law also required Xcel to work on the development of renewable energy sources and required the approval of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for future expansion requests.

Throughout the process, arguments questioning the safety and environmental risks posed by on-site storage of radioactive waste have been countered by claims that the minimal risks are far outweighed by the Monticello facility's contribution to an affordable energy supply.

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred, NCSL in Denver, CO.

MN Legislative Guide on Nuclear Waste Storage
News Summary

 

8/04/06           Significant GNEP Reprocessing Change Announced

In an effort to speed up the implementation of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department of Energy (DOE) announced plans on Thursday to look into "the feasibility of accelerating development and deployment of advanced demonstrations" of reprocessing technologies. 

The plan described by DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon would involve a "two-track approach."  Under the first track, DOE would focus on "the deployment of commercial scale facilities for which advanced technologies are available now or in the near future."  One part of the GNEP plan to close the nuclear fuel cycle on a global scale involves reprocessing (recycling) spent nuclear fuel.  This part of the plan originally included the development of new recycling technologies that would not separate out plutonium (because of proliferation concerns), and the development of advanced fast reactors to burn that new recycled byproduct.  DOE now plans to skip the demonstration scale phase of developing these new technologies and instead use reprocessing methods similar to those currently commercially available. 

The second track of the plan would then involve focusing R&D toward new technologies to successfully and cost-effectively separate and fabricate transmutation fuels (containing plutonium and minor actinides) and create an advanced fast reactor to burn those fuels.  Research in this second track is now slated to occur solely at DOE national laboratories.  

Efforts to adjust GNEP seem to be driven by a need to jumpstart the sputtering program.  Due to planning concerns, House appropriators recently hacked the FY 2007 budget for GNEP to $120 million from President Bush's request of $250 million.  In addition to overall program concerns, congressional interest was peaked last month with an industry report detailing the costs of reprocessing using current technologies.  The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) report, prepared on behalf of AREVA, Inc. (an international conglomerate offering total nuclear fuel cycle services, including reprocessing) suggested that the cost of current reprocessing technologies combined with the use of a repository are comparable to the cost of disposal alone. 

BCG's findings were based on the activities of AREVA, which uses "CO-EX" technology, a variation of plutonium-extraction (PUREX).  Under the CO-EX approach, plutonium is taken from the waste and then combined with small amounts of uranium to form a "mixed oxide base" (MOX) for the generated fuel.  This link to PUREX raised an immediate red flag for those with concerns about the proliferation of weapon's grade plutonium, which is separated out with current reprocessing technologies. 

Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that DOE's "radical change in direction completely undermines the primary objective of the GNEP program, which was to develop new reprocessing technologies that do not pose the same level of proliferation risk as conventional technologies."  Lyman went on to explain, "the so-called CO-EX process proposed by AREVA is even less proliferation-resistant than the UREX-plus process that DOE had proposed for development."    

In Thursday's announcement, Spurgeon was quick to dismiss proliferation concerns as they relate to the GNEP changes: "Many technologies have some relationship to PUREX," he said, "but ... one of the inviolate requirements here is we do not produce separated plutonium."

Hearings planned:

A briefing to describe DOE's baseline plan and answer expression of interest-related questions will be held August 14, 2006, from 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM in the Washington, D.C. area. DOE requests that interested parties who wish to attend the briefing send an email to GNEP_EOI_RSVP@nuclear.energy.gov.

Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), chair of the House subcommittee that controls DOE spending, reportedly hopes to hold a hearing on GNEP in September.  His Senate counterpart, Pete Domenici (R-NM), also expressed interest in conducting a reprocessing hearing that month.  Both of their appropriations subcommittees have already completed consideration of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that funds GNEP, but both foresee a conference necessary in the future to reconcile the significant difference between their FY 2007 funding levels (House at half, Senate fully funding).

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred, NCSL in Denver, CO.

 

DOE Press Release
News Article (Subscription Required)

 

 

 

           Minnesota Judge Rules in Favor of On-Site Nuclear Waste Storage 

July

7/26/06           Industry Report on Economic Viability of Reprocessing

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), an international corporate consulting firm, released a report on July 25 indicating that reprocessing (recycling) nuclear waste is economically feasible and would be an attractive complement to the Yucca Mountain repository.  The study was conducted on behalf of AREVA, Inc., an international conglomerate offering total nuclear fuel cycle services, including reprocessing.

Using cost estimates based on Areva's European program, the report found that the cost of reprocessing spent fuel would likely be $520 per kilogram, which is financially competitive with the "once-through" fuel cycle of total disposal at $500 per kilogram.  This figure, however, contrasts sharply to other estimates that recycling nuclear fuel would cost closer to $1,500 per kilogram.     

BCG's financial assessment is based on the PUREX reprocessing system of plutonium extraction, which is not currently used in the United States due to concerns of potential nuclear weapons proliferation from the byproduct.  The Department of Energy's (DOE) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a piece of which focuses on recycling, is instead looking into the development of an alternative know as UREX+, which would not separate out plutonium.  The developmental and operational costs of this alternative, untested system are unknown.   

The BCG report also compares "total lifecycle cost" estimates for a combined strategy of reprocessing and storage at Yucca Mountain ($113 billion), with the purely once-through cycle and storage at Yucca Mountain ($124-$130 billion) - a savings of $11-17 billion.  Additional benefits touted in the report include the reduced burden on repository space with less waste and less heat-producing elements, and the reduced demand for new uranium supplies since 20-25 percent of nuclear fuel needs could be provided with recycled products.

Sen. Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, expressed a sense of encouragement from the findings of the report:  "This report uses real economic figures to validate the position that it is time for the United States to embrace recycling of commercial spent fuel to maximize our energy use and minimize the amount of nuclear waste that must be stored."  Domenici plans to hold a hearing in his appropriations subcommittee in September to examine the BCG report.

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred, NCSL in Denver, CO. 

BCG Executive Summary
BCG Report
News Article (E&E subscription required)
AREVA Press Release

 

7/24/06           Timetable Announced for Yucca Mountain Project

On July 19, Ward Sproat, Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (DOE-OCRWM), announced the department's schedule for opening the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste repository.  DOE will submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 30, 2008 and begin receipt of nuclear waste at the repository in March of 2017, nineteen years after the legally-stipulated opening date.    

In remarks before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Ward Sproat listed his four strategic objectives as the new director or OCRWM, the first being the submittal of a high-quality application for the Yucca Mountain project.  The timetable for the project after the license is submitted will be subject to various uncertainties beyond DOE's control, including whether:

• Congressional appropriation levels meet project needs;
• NRC authorizes construction in a timely manner;
• Litigation outcomes are favorable;
• The Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act passes, which would allow for access to the Nuclear Waste Fund, land withdrawal at the site, and the ability to preempt state/tribal transportation requirements.

Sproat's remaining three objectives as OCRWM director include: training a multi-skilled staff to competently run the Yucca Mountain project, addressing the mounting liability of the federal government's failure to remove spent fuel from nuclear plants, and developing a comprehensive transportation plan that addresses state, local and tribal concerns. 

Requests for Proposals for independent assessment of the functioning of different areas within the Yucca Mountain project will soon be issued by OCRWM.  Sproat hopes outside assessments, combined with his own data collection on the draft license application, the quality assurance programs, and the engineering procedures, will help OCRWM pinpoint problem areas to better prepare for the project's lengthy road ahead.

Mr. Sproat emphasized the importance of opening a repository for the 50,000 tons of radioactive waste currently stored at reactor sites in 31 states across the country.  The creation of this facility will be important, he explained, to reduce the financial burden on American taxpayers, and to ensure that the potential of nuclear power as a source of energy is not compromised by the buildup of waste. 

Nevada legislators and interest groups opposed to the Yucca Mountain project expressed significant skepticism about DOE's ability to meet the proposed dates and open the repository, stating their unequivocal commitment to fighting the repository with continued legal and political roadblocks.  The schedule was quickly dismissed by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) as having "no basis in science or reality," and by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as being "little more than a wish list." 

For many who have seen years pass without a timetable for the opening of Yucca Mountain, however, Sproat's plan represents progress.  "This is an ambitious schedule, but it's nice to actually see a schedule," expressed the chair of the Senate Energy Committee, Pete Domenici (R-NM).  "This is the most detailed schedule on Yucca Mountain that I have seen in recent memory."

 

 

DOE Schedule for the Yucca Mountain Project
(as provided in a written statement for the House energy hearing)

Yucca Mountain License Schedule:
Design for License Application Complete - November 30, 2007
Licensing Support Network Certification - December 21, 2007
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued - May 30, 2008
Final License Application Verification Complete - May 30, 2008
Final Rail Alignment EIS Issued - June 30, 2008
License Application Submittal - June 30, 2008
License Application Docketed by NRC - September 30, 2008

 

Best Achievable Construction Schedule:
Start Rail Construction in Nevada - October 5, 2009
Construction Authorization - September 30, 2011
Receive and Possess License Application Submittal to NRC - March 29, 2013
Rail Access In-Service - June 30, 2014
Construction Complete for Initial Operations - March 30, 2016
Start up and Pre-Op Testing Complete - December 31, 2016
Begin Receipt - March 31, 2017

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Brice Kindred, NCSL in Denver, CO. 

 

Sproat Testimony
DOE Press Release
News Article

 

June

6/30/06           Interim Storage included in FY 2007 Energy Appropriation

 

The Senate Appropriations Committee prepared for the July 4 holiday recess by completing action on four appropriations bills on June 29, just two days after these bills were reported by their respective subcommittees. 

Included in this action was the FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (HR 5427).  The big news reported by the committee was a legislative rider involving nuclear waste storage tendered by New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.  Senator Domenici’s language would authorize the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to take title of spent nuclear fuel currently housed at commercial reactors and temporarily store it at consolidated federal sites in that state or region.  The proposal would require DOE to consult with governors in states where nuclear reactors are located to identify sites where the waste could be stored for up to 25 years, without the possibility of license extensions. 

HR 5427 sets first year appropriations for the consolidation and preparation program at $10 million to be funded by the Nuclear Waste Fund.  Established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Nuclear Waste Fund is an account paid into with fees assessed to consumers of nuclear power reactor energy - and is dedicated to the Yucca Mountain repository project.

The bill language also includes congressional "waste confidence," which legislates away the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's determination of sufficient waste disposal capacity before allowing for the construction or operation of nuclear power plants.  Proponents argue that with President Bush's energy independence strategy heavily reliant upon a renewed interest/investment in nuclear power, mandated confidence in a final waste disposal solution is necessary to cultivate a true renaissance in the industry.  Opponents argue that stating confidence doesn't amount to an actual disposal plan and in fact hinders the progress of the Yucca Mountain repository by taking the pressure off of movement toward a final waste solution.

One of the remaining hurdles for the proposal is the possibility that a point of order against legislating on an appropriations bill may be raised during floor consideration that would require 60 votes for approval.  The remaining legislative calendar for the Senate is limited.  However, we may see floor consideration of this and other appropriations as early as the week of July 17.

Many congressional insiders believe, however, that HR 5427 will not see floor action in the Senate, but rather will be delayed until after the elections and settled during a conference with the House on an omnibus bill to include multiple federal program appropriations. That will make it more difficult for opponents - of which there appear to be many in the House - to balk on interim storage because it would postpone completion of several other unrelated appropriations bills that may more directly affect their constituents.

 

Significant written contributions to this summary provided by Tamra Spielvogel, Senior Policy Specialist with NCSL in Washington D.C. 

 

Bill Text
Domenici Press Release
News Article

 

 

 

6/21/06           Interim Storage of Spent Fuel for GNEP Recycling

In a congressionally mandated report completed in May, the Department of Energy (DOE) stated that work on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in FY 2006 will include, "Promoting the consideration of alternative sites suitable for development of integrated recycling facilities, including storage of spent nuclear fuel to be processed in the recycling facilities."  The DOE report, "Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan," was required by a Conference Report of the FY 2006 energy and water development appropriations law, which sought information on the planning for GNEP's reprocessing and fuel cycle activities. 

A House Report on the FY 2007 energy and water development appropriations bill stated concerns that DOE had not included an interim storage requirement when seeking expressions of interest (EOI) from potential host sites of the new reprocessing program under GNEP:  "In the Committee's view, any such integrated spent fuel recycling facility must be capable of accumulating sufficient volumes of spent fuel to provide efficient operation of the facility. A first test of any site's willingness to host such a facility is its willingness to receive into interim storage spent fuel in dry casks that provide safe storage of spent fuel for 50 to 100 years or longer."

At a Senate hearing on June 13, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear power, Dennis Spurgeon, indicated that interim storage at a reprocessing facility was "implied."  Sources confirm that the original request for EOIs, issued on March 17, is now being revised to explicitly state this requirement - pushing back the schedule for actual proposals from its expected date of some time this spring.  More than 40 facilities have expressed interest in the reprocessing project; several may repeal their consideration with a spent fuel storage requirement of indeterminate length tacked on. 

Because spent nuclear fuel (SNF) intended for such reprocessing is not awaiting disposal in a geological repository, the May DOE report to Congress states that it would not be limited by Nuclear Waste Policy Act restrictions on interim storage.  In a legal memorandum responding to written questions from Rep. Dingell's (D-MI) office, DOE also mentioned the flexibility under the Atomic Energy Act to acquire nuclear material "to further any of its purposes including international cooperation and nuclear nonproliferation [and] support of research and development in nuclear power…."

 *Sources: 

• Greenwire online article (registration required).  Mary O'Driscoll, "Interim storage will be part of GNEP, DOE says."  June 14, 2006; E&E Publishing, LLC.
• Platts online newsletter (subscription required).  Daniel Horner, "DOE lays out near-term plans for work on fuel cycle initiative."  Volume 31/Number 13/June 19, 2006. 

Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan
House Report on Energy Appropriations for GNEP
Dingell/DOE Q&A
Request for GNEP EOI, March 17

 

 

6/12/06           Profile of Ward Sproat - New Director of DOE's Yucca Mountain Project

Edward F. "Ward" Sproat III takes office this week as the new head of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (DOE-OCRWM). 

Ward Sproat's professional background is industry-based, holding executive positions at energy companies including Excelon Generation Corporation, which operates the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in America.  He most recently served as managing partner of McNeil, Sproat & Associates, a Pennsylvania consulting firm.  Sproat is perhaps best known for his role as lead negotiator in a nuclear waste settlement between Excelon and DOE in 2004.  In exchange for payments related to on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel, Excelon agreed to drop breach-of-contract lawsuits against the department for its failure to meet a 1998 deadline to remove such spent fuel from reactor sites for final disposal in a federal repository.

In his new role as director of OCRWM, Sproat will be tasked with rejuvenating the Yucca Mountain project.  Since its identification for site characterization as the federal nuclear waste repository in the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, the project has been sidetracked by constant legal, political, and regulatory hurdles.  With President Bush's energy independence strategy heavily reliant upon a renewed interest/investment in nuclear power, industry confidence in a final waste disposal solution is essential for a true renaissance to seem viable.

First nominated by President Bush in September 2005, Sproat had been blocked with procedural holds placed by four U.S. Senators, including Nevada's Harry Reid and John Ensign.  Senator Reid announced his hold withdrawal after receiving a copy of the DOE Inspector General's report investigating emails suggesting non-compliance with quality assurance at Yucca Mountain; the report found that water infiltration work had not been compromised.  This and other hold removals made way for Sproat's Senate confirmation on May 26.

Several Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) nominees, who will review DOE's Yucca Mountain license application upon completion and submission, were also confirmed on May 26.  Dale Klein, assistant defense secretary for nuclear, chemical, and biological programs (see news piece from 4/28 below), will serve a five-year term as chairman of the NRC.  Former Reid aide, Gregory Jaczko, and former aide to Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM), Peter Lyons - both currently serving as temporary commissioners on the five-member panel - were confirmed to carry out the remainder of their five-year terms as well.

Sproat Article
Four Nominees Article

 

 

6/9/06             NRC Must Consider Terrorist Threat to On-Site Storage of Nuclear Waste

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on June 2 that the likelihood of a terrorist attack must be taken into account before regulatory approval of additional on-site radioactive waste storage at commercial nuclear reactors.

The case involved the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, California, which is building new storage facilities due to its current waste repository approaching maximum capacity.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted a permit to construct the storage facilities without specifically factoring in the threat of terrorist strikes, which it determined in 2003 to be "speculative" and therefore not warranting additional study.

The question now is what impact this court decision will have on the NRC's renewal of older nuclear power plant licenses, many of which are set to expire in the near future.  The granting of license extensions will result in increased waste and the need for expanded on-site storage while ambiguities persist as to the opening of Yucca Mountain, a federal permanent repository for the final disposition of reactor spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes.  Historically, NRC license renewal reviews looked into how well a plant had aged (most pushing 40 years in existence) to ensure that the facility was safe to continue operations.  An Environmental Impact Statement would assess the facility's ongoing affects on its surrounding environment, but not consider storage or emergency planning factors related to terrorist strikes.  The recent court decision may now require consideration of such events by the NRC when determining whether to renew nuclear plant licenses.

Two federal missions seem to be in direct conflict here.  The Bush administration staunchly touts anti-terrorism preparedness, but believes the nuclear industry is already over-regulated.  If a nuclear renaissance is to take hold, which the White House believes is necessary to wean U.S. dependence from foreign oil and "dirty" energy sources, roadblocks in the form of regulatory delays and higher costs in building the nuclear industry will hinder this energy transformation vision.        

News Article (CA case)
News Article (VT)
US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

 

6/5/06              Can DOE Spend Yucca Funds on GNEP?

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the 2007 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill in May, which included language prohibiting the Department of Energy (DOE) from spending Yucca Mountain repository funds on President Bush's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). 

Established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) is an account paid into with fees assessed to consumers of nuclear power reactor energy - and is dedicated to the Yucca Mountain repository project.  Because the recently passed appropriations bill allocates only $120 million for GNEP in fiscal year 2007, $130 million less than the administration's budget request, some legislators are concerned that DOE may attempt to cover this shortfall by siphoning money from the NWF - which has accrued about $26 billion over two decades and currently holds $18 billion.  House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), a sponsor of the amendment, is concerned about DOE interpreting NWPA language regarding approved uses of the fund (such as for waste development and demonstration) to justify spending NWF monies on GNEP activities.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member John Dingell (D-MI) asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman at a hearing in March whether the department planned to use Yucca funds for GNEP purposes, to which Bodman replied in the negative.  DOE recently completed a legal memorandum responding to written questions from Dingell's office regarding the department's authority to use the NWF for GNEP purposes.  Citing the NWPA section stating allowances for, "any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary in connection with the transportation, treating, or packaging of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in a repository….," DOE determined that where GNEP activities meet these requirements, they would be eligible for NWF monies. 

On the Senate side - Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), who chairs both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, has stated his unequivocal support for GNEP and his intention to fully fund the administration's budgetary request.  Domenici recently drew headlines when he stated that Yucca Mountain will not receive spent fuel rods - and that an ultimate repository design will depend on the outcome of GNEP.  He reckons utilities will need to store spent nuclear fuel on-site for a lengthy period before interim storage and/or GNEP reprocessing will be ready to accept it.  Only after these stages does the chairman see a role for final storage of nuclear waste in a permanent repository.  Domenici believes that using NWF dollars on GNEP would require some changes to the law regarding interim storage, which his recently introduced Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act (S.2589) fails to tackle.

Whether DOE can - or whether it will - spend Nuclear Waste Fund dollars on GNEP activities are two different questions.  Although DOE believes it would have the authority under certain circumstances to acquire NWF dollars for GNEP purposes succeeding congressional approval, the DOE's legal memorandum to Dingell's office asserted the department has no plans at the moment to do so.

*Sourced Energy & Environment Daily/Greenwire online publications (registration required) as well as those below.

  

Dingell/DOE Q&A
House Report on Energy Appropriations
Domenici Intentions article
NWPA

 

April

March

February