• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Environment, Energy and Transportation Program

Radioactive Waste News

A Bi-Monthly Summary of Generation, Transportation, Storage and Disposal Issues

Vol. 21, No. 2
April 2004

(printer-friendly version)

To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

In This Issue

Utilities File Suit Against DOE to Failure to Meet Waste Disposal Deadline 
Yucca Mountain  
Other News  
Private Fuel Storage  
Spent Fuel Casks  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
Nuclear Utility Update 
Upcoming Meetings 2004

Utilities File Suit Against DOE for Failure to Meet Waste Disposal Deadline

A Jan. 31, 2004, statute of limitations deadline meant that nuclear utility companies rushed to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims before the end of the month. At the end of 2003, 31 lawsuits were pending and an additional twenty were filed in January. At present, 65 damage claims have been filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Department of Energy (DOE) missed a Jan. 31, 1998, deadline--identified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)--for removing spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors. Although most of the lawsuits do not specify damages, industry officials estimate that they could amount to between $38 billion and $61 billion. The payment of these settlements ultimately would fall on U.S. taxpayers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an earlier lawsuit filed by Northern States Power Co. (now Excel Energy), found that DOE would be liable for unspecified damages to the nuclear utilities if it missed the 1998 deadline. This Nov. 14, 1997, ruling ordered DOE to work out a remedy with the utilities under the procedures of the standard disposal contract that all nuclear utilities signed pursuant to the NWPA. A 2000 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the door for nuclear power companies to proceed with lawsuits in the Court of Federal Claims against DOE.

The first damages trial began on March 1. The case  was brought by the Indian Michigan Power Company with respect to its Donald C. Cook plant in Michigan. As the first utility to enter the damages phase of these cases, it is seeking $150 million for extended on-site spent fuel storage costs. Utility lawsuits are motivated by the utilities’ desire to be repaid for what they are spending to keep the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site in dry casks--some at plants that have already been closed--or to rerack the spent fuel assemblies to create more space in the deep water cooling pools at operating plants. Other cost increases are associated with upgraded security requirements following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Another set of claims was filed by five utilities that maintain that DOE’s breach of waste disposal contracts impeded them from receiving the true market value of the reactors they sold. These complaints joined the 29 other utility claims, seeking roughly $5.7 billion in damages. Yet, despite the number and range of plaintiffs, all the complaints are for partial breach of contracts. One question the utilities will ask the court to decide is whether the reactor’s low selling prices were the result of the delay or of other market forces at work. The former owners believe that buyers factored into their valuations of the reactors such things as the increased costs, risks and uncertainties associated with the DOE delay. Another argument is that increased costs could result from managing the spent fuel longer and the corresponding delay in decommissioning of the units. A reactor site cannot be completely decommissioned until the waste has been removed.

The Court of Federal Claims could issue decisions in some damages cases in 2004, with appeals expected to be filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit soon thereafter in 2004 or 2005. These initial decisions might later be used to establish a template for determining damages.

YUCCA Mountain

Transportation

President Bush released his FY 2005 budget on Feb. 2, 2004, with a proposed $24 billion for the Energy Department, an increase of close to 4 percent over the FY 2004 budget. The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management received the largest percentage increase among DOE programs in the new budget, allowing the program’s transportation budget to triple to $186 million.

DOE Gears Up for a National Spent Fuel Transportation Program

As DOE is in the process of defining the type of transportation casks it will need to move spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, a draft request for proposals for conceptual cask designs is being prepared for issue. Fabrication orders are expected sometime in 2007. Because the acquisitions would be made in increments, starting small and gradually increasing, it could ultimately become a sizable market. 

Beginning the procurement process would set in motion DOE’s spent fuel transportation program, which has been in a holding pattern for some time. At this time, DOE’s vision is to purchase a fleet of approximately 100 casks through a competitive bidding process and to select a single contractor to manage the shipments. Because the procurement would be in phases, large sums of money would not be required immediately.

The transportation program is being developed to allow for any necessary adjustments to be made as the program proceeds. As it progresses, modifications can be made, as necessary, to meet the needs of utilities.

Individual cask vendors met with DOE at the end of January to identify vendor recommendations of the types of casks and technologies that should be included in DOE’s fleet. Although some NRC certified transportation systems exist, casks to ship materials such as nonstandard fuel and DOE high-level waste have not yet been developed. The cask fleet eventually will be comprised of about 10 legal weight truck casks and 90 rail casks.

The FY 2004 budget, which began Oct. 1, 2003, gave $44 million to the transportation program. That level of funding supported the development and issuance of the transportation strategic plan in November 2004, a document that will guide both the program’s process and DOE’s interactions with stakeholders. Presently, the transportation program is divided into distinct projects, of which the fleet acquisition project is one.

DOE also is working on a plan for acquiring rolling stock, including truck trailers or rail cars, to carry the casks to the repository. At the same time, the agency is reviewing the effect of an Association of American Railroads (AAR) standard on rolling stock procurement. Working with AAR, the utility consortium Private Fuel Storage (PFS) designed a state-of-the-art rail car that would be used by a commercial spent fuel storage facility PFS is proposing to build in Utah. In working with AAR, PFS was able to remove many of the problems associated with rail transport, including brake loads and derailments.

On April 8, DOE published a record of decision (ROD) in the Federal Register selecting the Caliente route as the rail route in Nevada and selecting mostly rail as the transportation mode. Concurrent with DOE’s announcement of the Caliente corridor as its preferred route, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that the land withdrawal process for the portions of the route that traverse BLM land had begun. The swath of BLM land identified in the withdrawal is wider than DOE requires, allowing the department some flexibility to decide where within the corridor the rail spur would be built. At the same time as the ROD, DOE issued a notice of intent to prepare and environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act for the alignment, construction and operation of a rail line in Nevada for shipments of spent fuel and high-level waste to Yucca Mountain.

DOE anticipates that, by the end of FY 2004, the department will have defined the transportation requirements, developed an acquisition strategy and begun procurements. The long-term goal is to have the system in place to begin transportation to Yucca Mountain in 2010.

License Application

OCRWM Looks to General Counsel

The Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) is receiving help from an attorney with the DOE Office of General Counsel to prepare a repository license application. In conjunction with its contractor Bechtel-SAIC, DOE is in the process of drafting the repository license application. The DOE Office of General Counsel, with assistance from an outside law firm brought on board in late March 2004, is assisting OCRWM with review of the license application and preparation for defense of the application in the licensing proceeding before the NRC. In addition, DOE has to certify to NRC that all documentary material required by 10 CFR 2.1003 are loaded on a Web-based licensing support network (LSN) at least six months prior to submitting an application. DOE is planning to make its initial certification to NRC on June 23, 2004.

LSN Creates Another Deadline for Yucca Mountain License Application

One requirement for DOE to submit a license application (LA) to the NRC includes loading all required documentary material onto NRC’s licensing supporting network (LSN) six months prior to the application deadline.

NRC has projected that it can electronically index 150,000 documents a week, meaning it could take the agency five months to process the 30 million pages of supporting documents that DOE has estimated it may submit. If the department intends to submit its application in December, the six-month LSN certification date is in June. The issue that remains unresolved at NRC is whether DOE documents just need to be loaded, or if they also need to be processed in order for the LSN document collection to be deemed complete.

The Department of Energy has indicated that it would consider loading documents to NRC’s LSN to be indexed under the condition that NRC maintain tight control of the material. NRC has issued a LSN guideline that would allow any LSN participant to request access control for any documentary material made available to NRC for early electronic indexing. At the same time, NRC’s Office of General Counsel is considering the question of whether its certification requirement means that DOE supporting documents need to be loaded, electronically indexed and searchable--or only loaded--into the LSN six months prior to DOE’s license application submittal.

Silicosis

Senator Questions DOE Safety Protocol at Yucca Mountain

Nevada Senator Harry Reid sent a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham that included questions about workers’ exposure to silica at the Yucca Mountain site. The letter followed a January 15 press release issued by DOE announcing a silicosis screening program for current and former workers at the Yucca Mountain project. Media reports have alleged that workers  involved in the construction of the five-mile Yucca Mountain tunnel  have developed lung problems, which they attribute to toxic dusts inhaled during work at the site. DOE is attempting to contact more than 1,000 former workers at the site to notify these workers of the silicosis screening program and invite them to participate in the silicosis medical screening.  This medical exam is free to the worker. 

Following his letter to Secretary Abraham and subsequent media reports, Senator Reid has called for an immediate shutdown of the project, until such time that inspectors can determine whether the rock tailings piled near the  tunnel pose health hazards. DOE’s position is that there is no ongoing health hazard from dust emissions from the rock tailings.  In response to the media allegations, the administrator of the Nevada Environmental Protection Division sent an inspector to the site to conduct an air quality inspection and examine volcanic rock tailings unearthed during excavation. This inspection found no violation of Clean Air Act regulations.

DOE Looking into Possible Cover-Up of Silica Exposure at Yucca Mountain

Following media allegations, officials at the Department of Energy initiated an investigation into whether in 1996 industrial hygiene field notes for the Yucca Mountain project were altered by the contractor, misrepresenting tunnel workers’ exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust during excavation. In a Feb. 25, 2004, memo, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), Margaret Chu, requested the investigation by DOE Inspector General Gregory Friedman.  The investigation requested by the OCRWM director would also explore why DOE officials were not informed of the allegation until it was reported by the press.

Senate Subcommittee Field Hearing

On March 15, 2004, Senator Reid held a field hearing in Las Vegas entitled “An Investigation into the Silica Exposure of Yucca Mountain Project Workers.”  Two tunnel workers provided testimony on the respiratory impacts they relate to their work at Yucca Mountain.  An industrial hygienist from Los Alamos National Laboratory provided information on past monitoring practices, but indicated the current program at Yucca Mountain is technically sound and workers are protected.  An industrial hygienist from private industry and a physician with a specialty in lung cancer testified about the worker protection practices during the tunnel boring operations and the relationship of the mineral erionite and lung cancer. Gene Runkle, OCRWM Senior Safety Advisor, provided information on the past respiratory protection practices and the Silica Screening Program being performed by the University of Cincinnati.  During the hearing, Senator Reid indicated he was very dissatisfied with the Department of Energy for its past practices and for the impact to these workers.

Class Action Suit Filed by An Ex-worker on behalf of Workers and Visitors at Yucca Mountain

A complaint filed with the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas on March 11 argues that Yucca Mountain contractors knew, or should have known by 1985, that the mountain  contained silica and other silicate minerals and that the tunnel drilling and excavation activities would   produce an airborne dust inhalation hazard. The lawsuit, filed against nearly a dozen  companies allegedly  involved in the Yucca Mountain tunneling operations, claims that more than 1,000 workers and visitors were “knowingly” exposed to toxic dusts at the site between 1992 and 1996. Although the complaint requests unspecified damages, it also asks the court to order the contractors to provide adequate personal protection equipment to all workers and visitors, in addition to maintaining efficient dust removal systems that reduce dust levels to recognized acceptable minimum levels.

Design

Former NWTRB Member Critical of Yucca Mountain Design

Paul Craig, physicist and engineering professor at the University of California-Davis, made a public statement after his resignation from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that the proposed Yucca Mountain repository is poorly designed and could potentially leak highly radioactive waste. Craig’s statement--made with regard to the canisters--was that, if there are high temperature liquids, the metal would corrode, eventually leading to the leakage of nuclear waste.

Craig is a former member of the 11-member technical review board that made clear to DOE its concerns about the potential for corrosion in November 2003, specifically targeting DOE’s understanding of the environment in the repository.

Surface Staging Area Could Hold Up to 40,000 MTHM

To be included in the license application DOE intends to submit to NRC at the end of the year is a surface staging area with the capacity to accommodate up to 40,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM). Essentially, the staging area would be a surface storage facility where dry storage systems would be used to hold the spent fuel until it can be moved underground. Although the spent fuel staging area would be built in stages, if all the modules are constructed, the maximum capacity could handle nearly 57 percent of all the waste that DOE would be allowed to move into a repository at Yucca Mountain. The staging area will allow DOE to mix and match spent fuel taken from casks in order to achieve the waste package thermal load necessary for repository operations.

Fuel Handling Facility High Priority of Yucca Mountain Project

Department of Energy (DOE) contractor Bechtel-SAIC has been directed by the agency to make the development of a repository fuel handling facility a high priority. It is thought that this facility will improve the department’s chances of accepting spent fuel at the proposed repository by 2010. The facility, part of the aboveground repository operations, would consist of a hot cell where spent fuel could be transferred from a storage or transport cask into a waste package for disposal. The fuel handling building, scheduled to be constructed at the same time as the canister handling facility--where similar work will be performed--would be funded first if funds are limited for the construction of the surface facilities. Two dry transfer facilities are incorporated into the repository design. The first would have a very small annual throughput, but the two now planned each would have the capability to transfer 1,500 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) per year of bare spent fuel assemblies into waste packages.

Nevada Lawsuits

U.S. Appeals Court Hears Consolidated Cases on Yucca Mountain

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel were critical of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) promulgation of a Yucca Mountain standard that is inconsistent with the National Academy of Sciences recommendation that the waste isolation period be longer than 10,000 years. The two judges--Harry Edwards and David Tatel--asserted during oral arguments on January 14 that the radiation protection standard issued by EPA in 2001 did not comply with the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The EPA standard was one of several points argued in the case, which consolidated the 13 lawsuits pertaining to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

If the court issues a decision against the 10,000-year waste isolation period, it would have the potential to delay a DOE repository. A ruling by the court that would require some adjustment to the EPA standard--which took the agency six years to write and promulgate--could, in turn, affect NRC licensing requirements. By law, NRC licensing regulations are required to reflect those of EPA.

Judge Edwards did not respond favorably to Nevada’s constitutional challenge of the joint resolution passed by Congress in 2002, overriding Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the site and endorsing President Bush’s site recommendation. Nevada also had challenged the constitutionality of the federal government’s selection of Yucca Mountain. Again, Judge Edwards responded, stating that “ … the federal government picked a piece of its own property … ” and that act was not about the state. The other argument presented by the state of Nevada to which both Judge Edwards and Judge Tatel were not receptive was the claim that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires that geology be the repository’s primary barrier, rather than a combination of engineered and natural barriers as proposed by DOE.

Other Yucca Mountain News

DOE to Fund Cask Study

All cask vendors holding certificates of compliance (COC) under 10 C.F.R. parts 71 and 72 governing spent fuel transportation and storage are expected to receive funding from the Department of Energy to conduct feasibility studies. The studies will examine vendors’ ability to take possession of spent fuel at utility sites and deliver it to a federal repository. The energy department is prepared to pay each of the cask vendors to study how well they could integrate their hardware and services with reactor sites across the country.

The feasibility studies will give the cask vendors the opportunity to promote their products to DOE. Specifically, the vendors will attempt to illustrate to the agency the ease of loading their transportation casks; the number of utility sites a specific cask design could service under its current license; the ease with which each design could be amended to accommodate the outliers; the experience of the design staff in earning amendment approvals from NRC; and the experience of the operations staff in conducting loading and unloading activities. One of the most significant questions the vendors will be asked is how well their systems align with the surface handling facility DOE is designing for Yucca Mountain.

Discussion of Yucca Mountain Security Requirement

Officials with DOE and NRC met to discuss Yucca Mountain security issues where DOE was told that it would have to comply with NRC security requirements outlined in 10 C.F.R. parts 63, 72 and 73. Any details of the safeguard and security measures to be taken at the site will be discussed in closed sessions. NRC’s site-specific rule for a Yucca Mountain repository is found under Part 63, defining the facility’s physical protection and material control and accounting regulatory requirements. The State Department, Defense Department, DOE and NRC must agree to put the facility on the eligible list under international safeguards protocol Part 75--an agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Association.

Potential for Yucca Mountain Funding Reform

The administration has developed a plan to change the way the Yucca Mountain repository project is funded, which could potentially jeopardize that work. During a DOE budget hearing, Representative David Hobson (R-Ohio)--a leading proponent of the repository project--advised Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham that the White House plan to designate the $749 million per year collected from nuclear utility ratepayers so that it could only be used for the DOE waste program could potentially face strong opposition in the Senate. Of particular concern is that, if the White House plan is defeated, appropriators might be forced to cut funding for the DOE repository program and other energy programs.

According to Hobson, if the administration’s proposal to remove the greater part of the Yucca Mountain spending from the energy and water funding bill is defeated, the entire project would be at risk due to the likelihood that the waste program’s budget would be reduced to fit the energy department’s budget allocation. In response, Secretary Abraham has pledged to make his case in both the House and the Senate that ratepayers are paying into the Nuclear Waste Fund to support the repository program and should feel confident that the money is being spent to take care of the spent fuel that generates their power.

Nevada Environmental Officials Inspect Yucca Tailings

Environmental inspectors from the Nevada Environmental Protection Division inspected a substantial tailings pile that resulted from boring the five-mile tunnel at Yucca Mountain to see if it poses a blowing dust hazard. An environmental scientist from the Division’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control reported that the tailings of fragmented rock are stable and site records are in order. There were no observations of dust blowing in a 25 mph wind on the day of the site inspection.

In Washington DC

New House Energy Chairman Takes Up Gavel

On Feb. 26, 2004, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) was formally approved by the House. He will head the panel that oversees nuclear power and waste. Critics of the Yucca Mountain project are wary because Barton, a strong supporter of the project, has pledged to speed up the repository program.

Another Member of the NWTRB Resigns

University of California professor Paul Craig resigned his position on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board at the end of January 2004. In a letter to President Bush, Craig stated his desire to work on other projects and to leave the “enormously stressful” situation. Dr. Craig served on the board for almost seven years.

Administration Abandons Plan to Allow Nuclear Contractors to Choose Safety Regulations

The Department of Energy (DOE) put on hold a proposal that would have allowed contractors at federal nuclear facilities to choose among safety rules. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham expressed concern about the perception that the proposed rule would have endangered workers. It was determined previously that the government would retain the authority to approve or reject any contractor-provided safety plans that recommended waiving requirements they thought should not apply to them. Secretary Abraham emphasized that contractors would not be writing the safety standards themselves.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations applied at private industrial sites, including commercial nuclear power plants, are mirrored by the basic safety standards that DOE commonly requires from contractors. Although DOE can fine contractors who expose workers to hazardous levels of radiation, until changes were made in the law two years ago, it lacked the authority to levy fines for failing to protect workers from other industrial dangers, including exposure to toxic chemicals.

NAS Panel Begins Study of Spent Fuel Pool Vulnerability

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Safety and Security of Commercial Nuclear Spent Fuel Storage held its first meeting in Washington, D.C., February 12-13. The panel is studying spent fuel pool security, launching itself into the midst of a debate between the NRC and the authors of an independent report on spent fuel pool hazards.

Two of the reports authors--Frank von Hippel and Klaus Janberg--told the panel that they and their six coauthors reviewed 25 years’ worth of national laboratory and NRC studies before concluding that high-density spent fuel pools could catch fire if there were a sudden loss of cooling water. Known as the Alvarez report, the paper maintains that storage pools in which the spent fuel rods have been closely packed due to reracking are attractive targets for terrorists. The report also argues that a significant draining of the pool water could trigger a zirconium fire.

Officials from NRC disagree, contending that its analysis illustrates how “robust and well protected” the spent fuel storage pools are and that, even if the fuel were damaged, the resulting consequences would be less severe than previously thought. NRC confidence in pool storage is based on several points that include the robustness of the structures, due to thick concrete walls and stainless steel liners; their location below grade; or shielding by other structures that would help to obstruct the impact from an aircraft or other vehicle.

The NAS committee charter includes assessing the potential safety and security risks of spent fuel presently stored in cooling pools at commercial reactor sites; the safety and security advantages of dry cask storage versus wet pool storage; and the potential safety and security advantages of dry cask storage using various cask designs.

Other News

NNSA Postpones Site Selection for Nuclear Trigger Manufacturing Plant

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) decided to delay any further action on the selection of a site for making plutonium triggers in order to address congressional concerns. The government terminated production of plutonium “pits,” or triggers, for warheads in 1989. The pit, about the size of a softball, is a critical component of a warhead. Congress has expressed concern about the proposed plant, which is estimated to cost as much as $4.4 billion, depending on the ultimate production capacity. As part of the energy department’s appropriation, Congress recommended the program be delayed until hearings can be held. A final environmental impact statement was scheduled to be issued in April.

National Park Designation for the Manhattan Project?

The Manhattan Project National Park Historical Study Act of 2003 was recently considered by a congressional committee. The legislation would have the National Park Service work in conjunction with the departments of Energy and Defense to prepare a special study that assesses the feasibility of the designation. Three sites--Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge and Hanford--have been identified for further study. Following the initial hearing, the committee will vote, which could happen as early as April 24. Once the bill has been passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it will be submitted to Congress for a final vote.

The three Manhattan Project sites already are on the National Register of Historic Places. Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) has said that he hopes this project will help Americans gain a better understanding of the Manhattan Project and its effect on history, and on mankind. The rationale for involving the Energy and Defense departments in the feasibility study is to ensure that any recommendations would be consistent with the ongoing missions of the sites and would not interfere with security needs. The underlying question of the bill is whether we will do better to preserve and interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National Historical Park. Asking this question is not meant as a celebration or a lament of the Manhattan Project; rather, it is a recognition of a responsibility to society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood.

Private Fuel Storage

Goshutes ask Feds to Reconsider Plan for Storage Facility

The tribal chairman of the Skull Valley Goshutes--the leading proponent of siting a spent nuclear fuel storage facility on tribal land--recently was brought up on criminal and civil charges. Indicted by a federal grand jury in December 2003 on charges of embezzlement and tax fraud, Skull Valley Chairman Leon Bear had been investigated by the Interior Department inspector general. In light of this, Skull Valley Goshutes who oppose siting the facility are requesting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reconsider the project. The request for reconsideration came just before the NRC reaffirmed a series of rulings by its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) that rejected past arguments made by the opponents and the state of Utah.

Bear was accused of withholding basic tribal services and benefits from Skull Valley Goshutes openly in opposition to the waste storage project. In response to complaints, the ASLB ordered hearings to address the issues, but the commission overrode the ruling. In its February 5 order, the NRC, for the most part, reaffirmed past rulings of issues raised by tribal dissidents and the state as part of a larger effort to streamline completion of the licensing process for the Skull Valley facility. In 1997, Private Fuel Storage (PFS) worked with tribal leaders to broker a deal to store up to 44,000 tons of high-level waste on the reservation.

A series of arguments by the state of Utah also were rejected in the NRC’s February 5 order. A total of 12 arguments presented by the state were rejected. However, the NRC did agree to look more closely at two issues: whether the benefits of the facility were overestimated and whether the PFS inspection regimen was adequate. With regard to the issue of environmental justice, the NRC stated that it felt there was no reason to foreclose Indian tribes from possible economic opportunities (such as the PFS facility, if it is built) under the guise of protecting tribes from environmental harm, no matter how slight the possibility.

Utah Statehouse Looks to Bar Hotter Rad Waste from the State

The Utah House passed a bill that would require elected leaders to sign off on proposals to ship more hazardous types of waste to the state. The Senate also must pass the bill, which would draw a new line on radioactive waste. Introduced by Representative Stephen Urquhart House Bill 145 is headed into the state Senate, where it is expected to receive solid support. The bill moves forward with the approval of both Envirocare of Utah--the most affected waste disposal company--and environmentalists who originally opposed the measure.

Urquhart acted in response to DOE efforts to send contaminated sludge from cleanup sites in Ohio and New York to a federally controlled part of Envirocare, even though the waste exceeded a statewide ban on such hot radioactive material. Congress then sought to reclassify the waste so it could go to Utah, at which time Envirocare withdrew from the public bidding process for the contract.

If the measure is approved by the Senate, the Utah governor and Legislature would be given the authority to give explicit approval to Envirocare any time it seeks to dispose of greater than Class A radioactive waste (the lowest level in a waste classification scale used by states and the federal government to measure the hazard level of radioactive material).

PFS Rail Spur Construction Overcomes Challenges

The NRC Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) that reviewed a Dec. 31, 2003, challenge to the proposed construction of a rail spur to link the planned spent fuel storage facility to an existing Union Pacific rail line was rejected by the board. The ASLB determined that less environmental damage would be caused by the proposed route than the several alternative routes that opponents favored.

One of the challengers--the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)--argued that the rail spur would run through an area along the Cedar Mountains, that SUWA believes should be federally protected. The three-judge ASLB did not agree with that argument due to the fact that the Bureau of Land Management--the agency charged with making wilderness determinations--did not find that the land met the wilderness criteria for protected status.

The state of Utah raised concerns regarding the ability of the proposed facility to withstand a collision with one of the F-16 fighter jets from a nearby military base. The ASLB agreed that this was a “credible accident scenario.” In an as-yet unscheduled hearing, Private Fuel Storage (PFS) will attempt to demonstrate that there would not be a significant radiological consequence of such a jet crash.

NRC to Review Three Contentions in PFS Case

In early February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rejected all but three contentions filed by the state of Utah in the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) licensing proceeding. Agreeing with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), NRC found many of the arguments filed by the state were not filed in a timely manner and that Utah failed to raise arguments that clearly challenged an error of the law, agency policy, or fact. NRC agreed to review the two challenges Utah raised to the cost-benefit analysis in the environmental impact statement (EIS). In addition, the agency agreed to consider the state’s claim that PFS did not adequately consider the environmental impacts of contaminated canisters. NRC did not find the ASLB’s reasoning for rejecting the contention to be clear, but it did intimate that the issue might have been addressed in the EIS. If this is the case, Utah’s complaint would be moot.

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI)

California County Planners Stand Firm on Call for Safeguards at Dry Cask Storage Site

San Luis Obispo County planners maintain their stance on the recommendation for more security from terrorist attacks for the proposed above-ground storage facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The planners final environmental assessment of the proposed facility contains seven additional safety requirements. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)--the owner of the plant--believes that the extra precautions are unnecessary and that the county has no authority to require them. The dry cask facility is slated to house used nuclear fuel rods that no longer produce energy for the plant. Currently, the rods are kept in a deep pool inside the plant, but pool capacity is diminishing.

A hearing on the dry cask proposal was held by the county planning commission on February 26. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expected to issue a license to build the facility sometime in 2004. The county planning commission has conceded that the NRC has exclusive authority over safety at Diablo Canyon and that the precautions are merely recommendations. Officials at PG&E have assured their compliance with all valid requirements, including those from the county in areas it is authorized to regulate, such as erosion control and air quality requirements.

Expanded Fuel Storage Capacity Planned for Surry ISFSI

Dominion Resources Inc.--a Virginia-based energy company--plans to significantly increase the amount of nuclear waste stored at the Surry Power Station. The utility currently stores all the spent fuel that powered Surry’s two nuclear reactors in an underground storage facility and in aboveground steel casks. On February 11, the Surry County Board of Supervisors voted to permit Dominion to store another 590 metric tons of spent fuel. Construction on the expansion is expected to begin this June, with an estimated nine months to completion. The increased storage space from the expansion will allow Surry to continue storing spent fuel through 2019.

Diablo Fuel Data Submitted by PG&E

Proprietary fuel parameter data submitted to the NRC by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in early January could clear the path for final approval of the utility’s site-specific application for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. The utility has provided NRC with all the information the agency requested, yet agency officials are unwilling to speculate on whether the information provided is sufficient or on the length of time it will take to make that determination. To satisfy the NRC’s requirements, PG&E must illustrate that the Diablo Canyon spent fuel meets NRC’s current temperature limits during dry storage. Once these issues are resolved, the agency will move forward with its review of the request from Holtec International to increase the heat limits in the Hi-Storm 100 storage system certificate of compliance. The Hi-Storm system will be used by Diablo Canyon under a site-specific license.

PG&E Reviewing Preliminary ISFSI License for Diablo

Preliminary draft copies of the license, technical specifications, and safety evaluation report for the ISFSI PG&E wants to build at Diablo Canyon were sent to the utility by NRC’s Spent Fuel Project Office. The draft documents will be reviewed by the utility to ensure there are no major omissions or errors. If PG&E has comments, it will provide them to NRC, which then will finalize the documents, issue the license, and publish a notice of issuance in the Federal Register.

The Diablo Canyon license will allow PG&E to load only low-burnup spent fuel into the Holtec International Hi-Storm 100 storage system. Should the utility decide it wants to store high-burnup fuel in the ISFSI, it will have to secure a license amendment from the NRC.

Petitioners of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were given until March 1 to file written arguments supporting their petition for a review of an NRC ASLB ruling on the application for the site-specific Diablo Canyon ISFSI. NRC staff are required to respond by March 31. At this time, petitioners have not asked the court for an injunction to temporarily bar the NRC from issuing the license.

Entergy Plans to Build ISFSI at Indian Point

A docket was opened for Entergy’s Indian Point Energy center following a Dec. 29, 2003, NRC notification that the utility plans to construct an ISFSI at the New York reactor site under the general licensing provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 72.

Connecticut Panel Questions Relevance of Yucca Mountain to the Millstone ISFSI

Dominion Energy is seeking approval from the Connecticut Siting Council to construct an ISFSI that would accommodate up to 135 spent fuel storage casks at Millstone. The council is questioning the need for such a facility in light of the projected 2010 opening of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository and is requesting that the company justify its request. In response, Dominion officials explained to council members that Millstone-2 would lose full core offload capabilities following its next refueling outage in spring 2005, and that the unit’s spent fuel pool would be full in 2010--five years before the current operating license expires.

If the company is given approval to construct the ISFSI, the first phase alone would preserve Millstone-2’s full core capability until 2013. At this time, Millstone-3 is not of concern; it will have full core offload capability through 2013 without having to remove any spent fuel from the spent fuel pool. The siting council posed the question of reracking the Millstone-2 spent fuel pool; Dominion officials responded that that is not an option because the pool already has been reracked twice.

GE Morris Rethinking Responses to RAIs

General Electric (GE) Morris Operation submitted a request to renew its license for the nation’s only away-from-reactor, pool-based ISFSI. Responses to an RAI issued by NRC focus on the scope of GE’s aging analysis. The Morris facility renewal is the first of its kind, is moving slowly. Morris’ 20-year facility license expired in 2002, but NRC regulations allow for continued operation, on the condition that the application for license renewal was received prior to the expiration date. Although NRC does not have a schedule for completing the review, staff are moving ahead with work on an environmental assessment of the renewal.

EIS Finalized for INEEL ISFSI

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) finalized the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed away-from-reactor ISFSI at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The EIS found that there would be little impact on the public and the existing environment if the ISFSI is constructed. Hoping to complete its review of the EIS by May, the NRC Spent Fuel Project Office (SFPO) is required to gain commission authorization before it can grant a license for the storage facility.

The Department of Energy’s motivation for constructing the ISFSI is to fulfill the requirements of a settlement agreement made between DOE, the U.S. Navy and the state of Idaho in 1995 that requires DOE to place spent fuel at INEEL into dry storage until it can be shipped out of the state. Eventually, the INEEL ISFSI will house spent fuel from DOE demonstration reactors and from various training, research and isotope reactors built by General Atomics.

Second ISFSI Renewal Requested

The H.B. Robinson-2 ISFSI received its 20-year dry storage license in August 1986. The owner of the site-specific facility--Progress Energy--filed a request on February 27 to renew the license. Progress Energy’s application closely follows the format and content of that submitted by Dominion Virginia Power for Surry, which was the first renewal application of a dry storage license. At this time, NRC is not anticipating receiving another application for ISFSI license renewal for another four years.

Decision Pending on Surry Renewal

Dominion Virginia Power is expecting NRC to issue a renewed license for the ISFSI at Surry sometime soon. The one question that remains is the utility’s request for a 40-year license renewal term, rather than the 20-year license renewal term outlined in NRC regulations. The original license for the Surry ISFSI will expire on July 31, 2006.

Target Date Set for Calvert Cliffs Amendment

Constellation Nuclear has submitted a license amendment application with NRC for its Calvert Cliffs ISFSI. The utility is seeking approval to use the Nuhoms 32PT in its facility, which now is approved to use the Nuhoms 24P. The 32PT, capable of holding eight more fuel assemblies than the 24P, is designed to be transportable. Constellation requested the amendment in December 2003, and NRC hopes to issue the amendment by July 16, 2004.

Spent Fuel Casks

Nuhoms-32PT Certificate in Effect

On Jan. 7, 2004, a certificate of compliance (COC) adding a 32-assembly pressurized water reactor canister to Transnuclear Inc.’s Nuhoms horizontal spent fuel storage cask line went into effect. This is amendment 5 to the Nuhoms COC. The COC allows Nuclear Management Co. to begin loading Point Beach spent fuel into the Nuhoms system.

Transnuclear Delays Responses for Advanced Nuhoms

A partial response to NRC’s request for additional information (RAI) was sent to the agency regarding Transnuclear’s (TN) application to add San Onofre-2 and -3 fuel as approved contents of the Advanced Nuhoms system at the end of February 2004. The RAI responses initially were due to NRC on Dec. 24, 2003. Among the concerns expressed by NRC in the RAI is how TN treated convection and the differences between TN’s analysis and confirmatory models run by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. NRC technical reviewers were not as concerned by the magnitude of the differences as by the reason for the differences themselves.

In spite of the RAI, TN is lobbying NRC to stay as close as possible to the current licensing schedule, which calls for a preliminary certificate of compliance (COC) and safety evaluation report (SER) by April 19, 2004. NRC staff advised the company that no commitments to the schedule could be made before it had the responses.

Southern California Edison, the majority owner of San Onofre, has stated that it must begin loading spent fuel from San Onofre-2 and -3 by September 2004, and has already begun procuring the necessary materials and the initial fabrication. TN’s Advanced Nuhoms system was designed and licensed to store fuel from San Onofre-1 in a dry shielded canister--the 24PT1. The requested amendment would add a second canister--the 24PT4--to allow storage of high-burnup fuel and accommodating fuel from units 2 and 3.

San Onofre Completes First Fuel Campaign

The first of three dry storage campaigns at San Onofre was completed by Southern California Edison. The first campaign removed the unit 1 fuel that had been stored in the unit 3 pool. The second campaign, which is scheduled to begin in April 2004 following a refueling outage, will remove unit 1 fuel from the unit 1 pool. The third campaign, which is expected to begin some time in 2005, will remove unit 1 fuel from the unit 2 pool. When the three fuel campaigns are complete, San Onofre will have filled 17 dry storage containers.

Burnup Credit Will Help to Put Storage Casks on the Road

Two utilities and two vendors that sought NRC approval to transport “storage only” spent fuel casks earned a preliminary nod from the agency with the provision that significant work still needs to be done. The most difficult challenge faced at this time by the older storage systems--that are not specifically designed to meet transportation requirements--is demonstrating that the fuel will remain subcritical.

The two vendors--British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) and Transnuclear (TN)--are faced with different challenges. BNFL seeks NRC transportation approval for the VCS-24 storage cask. The company’s proposed schedule is to submit an application in December 2004, with NRC approval by December 2005. TN seeks NRC approval to transport the TN-40 storage cask, which is almost identical to the TN-68 cask that the agency already has approved for transport.

Holtec Issued Another RAI on the Hi-Storm

A second request for additional information (RAI) was issued to Holtec International by NRC’s Spent Fuel Project Office with respect to the amendment request for the Hi-Storm 100 storage system. The request initially was submitted by Holtec in March 2002. The current RAI states 19 questions, seven of which relate to thermal analysis and six that address shielding analysis.

Maine Yankee Expected to Receive Exemption

Last winter, Maine Yankee experienced extensive ice formation beneath several NAC-UMS casks at the Wicasset, Maine, reactor site, for which NRC is ready to grant an exemption. The casks’ certificate of compliance (COC) requires users to verify a minimum friction coefficient between the cask and the storage pad. Maine Yankee received an NRC citation last summer for changing that requirement through methods other than a COC amendment. Because the utility’s analysis found no safety significance associated with sliding in an iced condition, it disputed the violation. The agency did not argue with the safety significance, but upheld the notice of violation on procedural grounds.

New Mexico Lawmaker Wants Full-Scale Tests of New Trupact Shipping Cask

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is compelling NRC and DOE to go beyond regulatory requirements to commit to full-scale testing of the new single-walled Trupact III shipping cask. The energy department is hoping to use the Trupact III to move transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. The new cask will be able to accommodate waste that does not fit into the double walled Trupact II. In 2003, tests were conducted on a half-scale model of the Trupact III, the results of which will be included in the license application DOE intends to submit to NRC.

The commission’s regulatory requirements for conducting certification testing--10 C.F.R. Part 71--allow for scale-model test results to be submitted along with analyses showing the results are representative of a full-scale cask. The two agencies already have had several pre-application meetings to discuss the Trupact III.

A recent NRC rule change that allows single-walled containers to be used to ship plutonium in excess of 20 curies has raised some questions. Previously, these types of shipments were prohibited under NRC rules. The recent rule change is to correspond with International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) requirements. The Trupact III would be the first application for a single-walled plutonium shipping cask under the newly revised NRC regulation.

Nuhoms Amendment Seven In Effect

Amendment seven to the Nuhoms spent fuel storage system was effective as of March 2, 2004. The amendment, which includes several minor changes to the technical specifications, allows users of the system to load damaged fuel and other fuel types into the 61BT transportable boiling water reactor (BWR) basket. Amergen will be the first utility to use the amendment at its Oyster Creek facility.

TN Discusses New Application with NRC

Transnuclear Inc. (TN) intends to submit a new cask design--Nuhoms 32PTH--for NRC review; details of the design are similar to a design that currently is under NRC review. Features of the new canister include an egg-crate basket similar to that in the 24PTH--submitted to NRC in September 2003 as amendment eight to the Nuhoms line--a new horizontal shielded module, and a new transfer cask. A request for additional information (RAI) has yet to be issued on amendment eight. Although similarities exist between the two TN applications, NRC staff emphasized the importance of submitting a stand-alone application for the Nuhoms 32PTH.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Comments Sought on Regulatory Guide Revisions

A proposed revision to the standard format and content guidance  for spent fuel transportation was issued by NRC. The draft regulatory guide--DG-7003--may be found on NRC’s Adams document database. The deadline for comments on the draft was March 9, 2004.

New Appointment to Section Chief Post

The Spent Fuel Project Office’s (SFPO) Technical Review Section A named Gordon Bjorkman as its section chief. In August 2003, the position was vacated following Earl Easton’s transfer to senior level scientist for transportation issues. With the SFPO since 2002, Bjorkman started as a technical reviewer and has 30 years of experience as a consultant, expert witness, university professor and researcher.

License Hearings to Be Made More “Effective and Efficient”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced changes to the way its licensing hearings will be conducted to make the process more “effective and efficient.” The new regulations governing these proceedings--10 C.F.R. Part 2--were published in the January 14 Federal Register and went into effect February 13. Under the new rules, the presiding officer of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is required to establish milestones for a contested hearing and to notify the commission if there are setbacks in that schedule.

NRC Funds Package Performance Study

Using its own money to cover the $30 million cost of a Package Performance Study through FY 2009, NRC’s Spent Fuel Project Office has decided not to rely on funding from DOE. The study is expected to test a spent fuel rail cask and a truck cask to determine how they would perform during potential accident scenarios, including crashes and fires. Agency staff prepared a paper for NRC commissioners that outlined the public comments received on the draft test plan, in addition to options for proceeding with the transportation cask tests. Three test options are included in the letter: 1) regulatory testing as described in 10 C.F.R. Part 71; 2) extra-regulatory testing that goes beyond the regulatory requirements; and 3) demonstration testing of specific accident scenarios. The commissioners will either choose one of these options or a combination of the three. That decision should be made within 30 to 45 days of receiving the staff paper.

NRC Staff Decides Against Testing Transport Casks to Failure

An NRC staff paper to the commission asks for guidance on several proposed options for a full-scale cask testing program, but rejects the idea of testing the casks to failure as a way to build public confidence in NRC-certified spent fuel transportation casks. The paper not only retains the original test proposal, but also includes new options centered on tests in NRC’s regulations for spent fuel transportation and on separate tests to demonstrate cask performance under realistic accident conditions. 

Two alternative tests included in the paper then emerged as important themes in the public comments received on the draft. The tests outlined in NRC regulations include a 30-foot drop test, a puncture test, a fire test, and immersion tests. The demonstration tests would respond to recommendations from stakeholders that the tests reflect the type of accidents most likely seen along a highway or rail route.

Testing to failure was a clear theme that emerged from public comments on the proposal, yet NRC staff believes that such testing would be incompatible with realistic demonstration tests. Another common theme in the public comments was addressing potential terrorist attacks in the package performance study (PPS). That issue already is being dealt with by NRC in other ongoing issues, therefore it will not be incorporated into the PPS.

Once NRC staff receive direction from the commission, they will develop detailed test plans and procedures, initiate cask procurement, and develop a comment resolution report describing how the test program addresses stakeholder comments.

Nuclear Utility Update

Dominion Requests License Renewal for Millstone Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting a preliminary review of the application by Dominion to renew the licenses for the two Millstone nuclear power plants for an additional 20 years. This early check is to ensure that the application is ready for formal consideration. Once it is, NRC will publish a notice in the Federal Register, at which time the public will have 60 days to request a hearing. There will be additional opportunities for public comment during the license renewal process, which is expected to last for as long as 30 months. The application seeks to extend the license for Millstone-2 into 2035 and the license for Millstone-3 into 2045. Combined, the two plants generate about 2,000 megawatts of electricity--enough to power about 2 million homes.

Safety of Uprating Reactors Raising Questions

Questions are being raised by safety experts regarding the efforts made by the nuclear power industry to expand its output by the equivalent of three large reactors without bringing a single new plant on-line. During the last 20 years, numerous nuclear plants have won permits to uprate--add capacity to reactors. Coupled with expanded working hours and 20-year extensions on operating licenses, the output of the nuclear industry has expanded to the point that safety experts consider could be potentially dangerous. In their defense, plant owners say that they are modernizing plants to improve safety.

However, an application submitted by Entergy Nuclear to raise a reactor’s power output by 20 percent has drawn a  proverbial line in the sand. Nnuclear engineers outside the company hope to mount a serious technical challenge to the application. The plant in question is the 32-year-old Vermont Yankee reactor. The Vermont plant is exempt from some government safety regulations because it was licensed before regulations were written.

Since 1973, no one has ordered construction of a new nuclear plant in the United States, but the 103 reactors now licensed have added capacity and will continue to add the equivalent of another two or three plants within the next few years. Plant managers at Vermont Yankee say the reactor was built with an enormous amount of unused capacity and increasing the power output can make the plant safer; modernization may include installing components that are more precise and reliable. The upgrade of the Vermont Yankee plant is expected to cost about $60 million and would raise the current capacity of the reactor from 524 megawatts to 634 megawatts.

Concerns about the Vermont Yankee upgrade center on the fact that the plant was licensed prior to a requirement that all reactor safety equipment have a backup. Some fear that this loophole could make the plant more vulnerable to a severe accident if even a single component failed after the emergency cooling system was required. The nuclear engineer for the state of Vermont sent a letter to NRC expressing his concerns about the reactor’s uprate application.

Upcoming Meetings - 2004

May 5-7 - National Academies Committee on Transportation of Radioactive Waste

The focus of the meeting is on transportation risk. The open session for this meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 5. Additional information is available on the committee’s website http://dels.nas.edu/radwaste/.

May 10-13 - NCSL High-Level Waste Working Group

The focus of the meeting is on … and will include a tour of Yucca Mountain. Additional information is available on the NCSL website http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/cleanup.htm.

Presentations from the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.  Also addressed will be State-Tribal issues related to spent fuel transportation and the state of Nevada’s perspective on Yucca Mountain.

May 18-19 - Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

The spring meeting of the NWTRB will focus on the potential for corrosion during the thermal pulse. The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel; 1250 22^nd Street, NW; Washington, DC 20037.  The telephone number is 202-857-3388, and the fax number is 202-293-3173.  The meeting is open to the public, and opportunities for public comment will be provided.  The meeting sessions will begin at 8:00 a.m. on both days. Additional information is available on the NWTRB website http://www.nwtrb.gov/.

June 15-17 - CSG’s Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee

The spring meeting of CSG’s Midwestern Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee will be held in Topeka, Kansas. Additional information is available on the CSG Midwest website http://www.csgmidwest.org/About/MRMTP/Committee/meetings.htm.

June 16-18 - NAS Board on Radioactive Waste Management Accelerating Cleanup Committee

The location for this meeting is yet to be determined. When additional information is available it will be located on the NAS website http://www7.nationalacademies.org/brwm/Highlights_and_Upcoming_Events.html.

July 19-23 - NCSL Annual Meeting

NCSL’s 2004 Annual Meeting will be held in Salt Lake City. The theme of this year’s meeting is “The New Legislative Reality.” Additional information is available on the NCSL website http://www.ncsl.org/annualmeeting/Index.htm.

Publications page

Visitor counts for this page.