(To view PDF files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

Mission and History of NCSL's High-Level Radioactive Waste Working Group (HLWWG)
Melissa Savage, Program Director, Environment, Energy, and Transportation; National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
Download PDF Presentation

Radioactive Waste 101 - Presentation Tool for Legislators
Christina Nelson, Senior Policy Specialist, Environment, Energy, and Transportation; NCSL
Cloyce Brackett, Policy Analyst, Nuclear Programs; Southern States Energy Board (SSEB)
NCSL and SSEB are collaborating on a presentation tool for legislators or agency staff to inform the general public, constituents, and colleagues about nuclear issues.  The intention is to provide clear, basic, objective information to ensure public perception is informed, as public perception is currently considered the greatest hindrance to safe and secure transportation of nuclear waste.

Suggestions for revision to the draft tool, which is in preliminary stages of development for use as a stand-alone interactive webpage include: updating shipment numbers frequently, ensuring sensitivity on issues such as the Three Mile Island incident, and providing links to all reference material.

Introduction to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)
Ward Sproat, Director; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-OCRWM
When working in the private sector for Excelon, Mr. Sproat negotiated the first liability settlement with DOE for their failure to receive waste from utilities by the contractually-obligated date of January 2008.  Now approximately 25 percent of reactors have settlements.

OCRWM has many actions planned and issues of importance for review over the coming nine months:

• The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in August 2007 entitled, "Yucca Mountain: DOE Has Improved Its Quality Assurance Program, but Whether Its License Application for a NRC License Will Be High Quality Is Unclear," which determined OCRWM has progressed in resolving quality assurance recommendations and challenges identified in the GAO's March 2006 report.
• Plan to certify the Licensing Support Network (an online resource of all documents used in the Yucca Mountain License Application - 3.5 million documents) in the next two months.
• DOE will issue the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Yucca Mountain and the Rail Alignment, with the final due in 2008.
• Assess the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) - provide an update from the 2001 version.  Will also determine whether the waste fee paid by utilities is still adequate (1 mil / kilowatt hour).
• Budget issues - Working to allow DOE access to the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), which holds the utility-paid fees for nuclear waste disposal.  Funds for the Yucca Mountain project are now doled out according to political will through congressional appropriation, and amounts are restricted by balanced-budget requirements even though the NWF is collected separately specifically for nuclear waste disposal.
• Report on the need for a second repository is due to Congress by the end of 2009 (expect to have it around mid 2008 when the Yucca Mountain License Application is complete).  If the arbitrary capacity limit at Yucca Mountain - 70,000 metric tons - is not lifted, then the report will state that another repository is needed.
• The License Application for Yucca Mountain will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 2008, possibly in March or April.

Q&A
A federal judge recently denied DOE's water rights at Yucca Mountain.  How will this affect the project?

-  It will likely be resolved in the courts or in federal law.  The state engineer had turned down DOE's request for water rights (for cooling drill bits, etc., especially necessary during the construction phase) and the state legislature passed a law that granting these water rights was not in the state's interest.  A judge in Las Vegas stayed the decision to cease and desist.

-  DOE will stop drilling for now, but will continue to work with its legal team.  This circumstance will not stop DOE from submitting the Yucca Mountain License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by June 2008.

What is the timeline for opening Yucca Mountain?

-  Once the License Application is submitted, the NRC will have 36 months to review it (will likely request a 12 month extension).  The board will hear any contentions and there will likely be litigation in federal court (about four years).  This puts the opening at 2017 as a best case scenario, but it will realistically be closer to 2021-22.

What are the odds that the license application will not meet NRC requirements?

-  DOE will submit a docket-able license.  DOE will work with the NRC throughout the process.

Will DOE recommend to Congress the need for another repository?

-  If the arbitrary capacity limit of 70,000 metric tons of waste is not raised (some studies report capacity more like 120-130,000 metric tons or higher), than another repository will be necessary.  There are several bills in Congress to change the capacity limit.  The NRC would determine what is safe.

What are the "one-time fees" you mentioned when discussing the utility ratepayer supported Nuclear Waste Fund?

-  These were fees utilities had to pay retroactively to when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted.

What have been the payouts for the 25 percent of utilities which have settled with the federal government on breach of contract requirements to pick up waste by January 1998?

-  The federal government has paid $255 million so far.  There are 52-55 lawsuits still active.  By 2017, cost estimates predict about $7 billion, increasing by a half billion every year thereafter.

Are these costs included in the life cycle cost analysis for Yucca Mountain?

-  Considered giving utilities credits to the Nuclear Waste Fund instead of direct pay outs, but found this to be illegal use of the Fund.  The money is now coming from the federal judgment fund.

What kind of effect would recycling nuclear waste have on the capacity at Yucca Mountain?

-  The law currently states that the 70,000 metric ton limit relates to the amount of the original waste source, so even if the actual waste tonnage is lower after recycling, the extra room could not be utilized.  The law would need to change to allow for greater capacity.

How likely is it that the Domenici bill related to Yucca Mountain will pass, and what is an important factor in the bill?

-  Can not speculate on passage.

-  The revenue changes (allowing DOE greater access to the Nuclear Waste Fund instead of requiring yearly appropriations based on politics) is critical.

National Transportation Plan, OCRWM Update
Alex Thrower, Senior Policy and Technical Advisor; DOE-OCRWM
Download PDF Presentation

Q&A
Is DOE considering barge as a mode of transportation for spent fuel?

-  DOE is conducting a benchmarking study of successful transportation programs, which will inform decisions on which modes make the most sense (one important factor is existing infrastructure.

180(c) Emergency Preparedness Funding for States Along Transportation Routes
Corinne Macaluso, TEC Coordinator, Office of Logistics Management; DOE-OCRWM
Download PDF Presentation
Link to Federal Register Notice - comments period ends October 22, 2007.

Q&A
The funding percentages given (.3 for population, .3 for miles traveled, .3 for number of shipments, and .1 for shipping sites) is based on what whole number?

-  This has not yet been determined.

LEGISLATOR ROUNDTABLE

• Energy Policy Summit - Kate Marks, Energy Program Manager; NCSL

At the NCSL 2007 Energy Policy Summit, participants focused on climate change, a priority issue that was determined at the first Energy Policy Summit in Nashville in 2006.  This full day meeting was an opportunity for legislators to hear from national and industry experts on rising energy demand, the need for new supply for electricity generation and transportation fuels, and how environmental and economic impacts play a role in policy and decision-making. 

• State Reports

Arkansas:

- State has two nuclear reactors at one site - both have been re-licensed through 2034 and 2038.  Arkansas is happy to have them.
- State providing tax breaks for alternative fuels; corn being produced for fuel.
- Natural gas production important in Arkansas as well.

Florida:

- Utility considering building two new nuclear plants in the state.
- Florida recently passed comprehensive energy legislation, on par with California.
- Looking into citrus/glucose fuel and alternative energy, windmills in the gulf stream, and building efficiencies.
- $60 million will be invested in renewables/energy efficiency.
- The Public Service Commission will get involved in net metering.
- The governor hosted a "Conference on Climate Change" in July.

Georgia:

- Nuclear waste is transported through Georgia from the Savannah River Site enroute for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM.
- State has two nuclear power plant sites - Vogtle and Hatch.  Nuclear plants are operating at 90 percent capacity.
- Georgia utilities saved 78 megawatts of electricity by having customers turn off their air conditioning during the 10-day stretch of 100 degree weather.
- Biodiesel plant uses chicken fat and soybeans.  Processors are hording chicken fat to raise prices.

Illinois:  

- Deregulation in the state has resulted in a 200 percent cost increase. 
- GE Morris is in contention to host one of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership recycling facilities, with the community's support. 
- Ethanol is a boom industry at the moment.

Maine:

- Maine Yankee nuclear power plant was decommissioned in the 1990s, but continues to store spent nuclear fuel in dry casks onsite.  State wants federal government to take the waste.
- There are pollution problems in Maine; epidemic with children's asthma and toxic fish in food supply.
- Maine could see nuclear as a means to help transition away from fossil fuels, although it hasn't been a popular energy source choice in the past.

Maryland:

- Maryland was the first state to re-license a nuclear reactor.
- May get a third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs.  Public comments were largely positive.  Eighty-five percent of the negative comments had to do with radioactive waste concerns.
- Electricity transmission problems in the Northeast (acquisition of property).
- Maryland has a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 9.5 percent by 2022.
- State is home to Holly Farms and Perdue - experimental chicken fat plant?

Minnesota:

- Legislature considered proposal to lift the state's ban on new nuclear power plant construction - no decision made.
- Minnesota passed a renewable energy/energy efficiency bill, and has a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 25 percent by 2025.
- E85 ethanol requirements are brining debate of water quantity.  The University of Minnesota is studying grasses for fuel.
- State looking into carbon sequestration, and has an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant under development.
- Electricity transmission concerns.

Nevada:

- Nevada has no nuclear reactors, but is slated to take all of the radioactive waste.
- The state originally thought the site characterization looked positive for Yucca Mountain, but the more scientific studies conducted, the more fractured the results.  The rock is porous, not appropriate to contain radioactive waste.  Salt beds may be the solution, but Congress has focused solely on Yucca Mountain.
- Nevada is against the repository.  Instead support leaving the waste onsite at facilities around the country for 100 years, then allowing advanced technologies to determine the next step.
- Fusion power may be the solution to the waste issue (instead of current process of fission at reactors).  An international fusion reactor research and development project is currently being conducted in France.

New Hampshire: 
Seabrook nuclear power plant will be decommissioned in 2026.  Seabrook has a nuclear decommissioning financing committee to determine funds necessary to complete the project (paid for by the utility).

New Mexico:

- State is home to Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia, White Sands testing facility.
- The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad is the nation's repository for defense-related radioactive wastes.  The National Academy of Sciences found that salt caverns (such as found at WIPP) make for good disposal locations.  WIPP's capacity could be expanded to 120,000 cubic meters to receive additional wastes - perhaps Greater Than Class C low-level waste, or some high-level wastes, but radioactive waste terminology needs to be defined more clearly and the current rules/regs authorizing WIPP would need to be changed.
- New Mexico has a Renewable Portfolio Standards of 20 percent by 2020.
- State looking into: transmission authority, tax incentives for renewables, sequestration technologies, and algae biodiesel.

North Dakota:

- The state has no nuclear power plants, but nuclear material is transported across the state (150 missiles).  North Dakota will not receive 180(c) funds though.   Additional radioactive waste comes through the state from Canada.
- State interested in coal gasification, oil, hydroelectric, wind, and are building ethanol and biodiesel plants.
- North Dakota also has uranium deposits; how might recycling affect uranium mining?

South Carolina:

- Low level radioactive waste storage facility in Barnwell closing its doors to states outside of the Atlantic Interstate Compact (Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina) in 2008.
- Personal thoughts: Global warming needs to be studied more; it may be cyclical.  There are common sense (conservationist) and radical environmentalists.  Every state seems to be jumping on the biodiesel bandwagon even though it costs more to produce; need to consider affects on other industries (cattle, etc.).

Vermont:

- The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant license expires in 2012.  The state has allowed for dry cask storage.  The NRC will decide whether to re-license the facility, but the state legislature will vote for or against the continuation of its operation.
- State analyzing life-cycle costs of energy sources (cradle to grave) such as solar and coal.
- Conducting a public education campaign about clean energy and efficiency (not deregulated).
- Some interests of the state include: farm to fuel, net metering, clean energy fund, distributed generation.  Funding is an issue.

Wisconsin:

- State has two active nuclear power plant sites, and one decommissioned site.  Of the two active sites, Kewaunee is preparing for dry cask storage, and Point Beach 1 and 2 were re-licensed through 2030 and 2033 when they must be decommissioned. 
- State legislature considering repealing their moratorium on building new nuclear facilities because they don't know how else they would make up the percentage of electricity currently coming from the source.
- Wisconsin understands the need to diversify its energy mix; Renewable Portfolio Standard is ten percent by 2015.
- The governor supports a task force on global warming.

 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Update
Earl Easton, Senior Level Advisor for Transportation; Spent Fuel Project Office, U.S. NRC
Download PDF Presentation

Industry Report from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Marshal Cohen, Senior Director, Legislative Programs; NEI
Everett Redmund and Rod McCollum, NEI
Download PDF Presentation

Q&A
Does industry support interim storage?

-  Yes, but it would need to have the support of the community in which it was housed and there would need to be assurances that it would be "interim."  It would make sense to sponsor a recycling facility at the same location.  NEI thinks a private facility makes the most sense, such as Private Fuel Storage in Utah (if the community backed such an effort).

Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel Panel:  What is it?  Who uses it?  Benefits and Drawbacks

• Buzz Savage, Acting Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Management; DOE Office of Nuclear Energy 
  Download PDF Presentation

The PUREX system for reprocessing/recycling spent fuel (technologies currently in use) separates out pure plutonium and therefore is not a preferred method for the administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).  Technology to separate out all of the transuranics (actinides) together - including plutonium - is being developed in the national labs.  The remaining uranium 238 (95 percent of the waste) could be re-enriched for use in a regular reactor or breeder reactor.

A draft Integrated Waste Management strategy will be released later this year.

Currently working on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for GNEP reprocessing facilities, and will make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy next year on how/whether to proceed with GNEP.

The first recycling facilities could be operational in 2020-2025.  The success of the program depends largely on adequate congressional funding.

• Dr. Alan S. Hanson, Executive Vice President-Technology and Used Fuel Management; AREVA NC Inc.
  Download PDF Presentation

GNEP seeks a type of separations process that will require decades of research and development.  AREVA is working on a co-extraction method that does not separate out pure plutonium, but rather a plutonium/uranium mix (COEX technology).

Would it be possible to ship U.S. spent fuel to France for reprocessing, as even with current technologies, the ability to reprocess in the U.S. would be at least 10-15 years out (siting, licensing, constructing facilities)?

• Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, Director, Nuclear Programs; Natural Resources Defense Council
  Download PDF Presentation

The use of fast reactors and breeder reactors has failed in every country in which they were employed.  Reprocessing spent fuel is not safe or economical.

Q&A
Would reprocessing reduce the thermal load in Yucca Mountain.

-  Yes.

Comment:  Information on reprocessing often seems contradictory.  NCSL will review reports and data on the technical, economic, and social aspects of reprocessing and provide a summary for legislators at the next meeting.

NCSL High-Level Radioactive Waste Working Group (HLWWG): 3-year Work Plan
Christina Nelson, Senior Policy Specialist, Environment, Energy, and Transportation; NCSL
The HLWWG Executive Committee crafted a three-year work plan in Charleston, SC in the fall of 2005.

Three main pieces came out of the meeting: issue areas for research/tracking/reporting, work products, and outreach.

• Issue areas - top three: reprocessing/GNEP, Yucca Mountain progress, interim storage.  NCSL staff disseminate information in several ways:

• Website - NCSL staff maintain a Nuclear Waste webpage housed on the NCSL site under Environmental Protection.  A new URL was created for easier access: www.ncsl.org/nuclearwaste.  The website includes:
  • News summaries of the biggest issues in radioactive waste (RW) and environmental management (EM).  Highlights current news/legislation and provides links to articles, bills, hearings testimony, press releases, academic reports.  All articles are combined into a quarterly, issue-oriented newsletter - also found on the website.
  • Notes from all radioactive waste meetings NCSL staff attend and host throughout the year (close to 20).
  • Two databases of state legislation:
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Environmental Justice
• Individual information requests - NCSL staff also answer requests directly from legislators or their staff on specific issues for which they'd like further research conducted.  Many recent requests have focused on states with bans on construction of new nuclear facilities, and those seeking to lift such bans.
• Monthly project updates - Progress reports are sent to all legislative members of the HLWWG by email each month to maintain information flow and contact between meetings.

• Work Products
  •  CD-ROM, or interactive webpage - a legislator's tool for informing/presenting on radioactive waste (see discussion above). 
  • NCSL staff recently completed an update to the Low-Level Waste Primer, which should be released later this fall/winter.
  • NCSL is finalizing the updated Transportation Primer for easy viewing on the web.

• Outreach - The purpose of our outreach effort is to ensure that the varied/innovative work conducted around the country on radioactive waste policy issues are known (available as resources) and coordinated as much as possible for efficiency.  NCSL staff attend and report on:
  • State-regional group meetings each spring and fall - about ten per year.
  • DOE Transportation External Coordination Working Group participation (open to all stakeholders) - two meetings per year with interim work done via conference calls.
  • Technical Boards - The National Academy of Sciences Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board - four meetings per year; review technical reports upon release.
  • Waste Management - international gathering once a year to focus on both radioactive waste (RW) and environmental management (EM) issues.
  • NCSL also staffs an EM Roundtable of state legislators and a State-Tribal Government Working Group (STGWG) of state agency, tribal, and state legislator interested parties.  These groups focus on the cleanup of the former nuclear weapons complex.  Both groups usually gather during DOE Intergovernmental meetings (one per year) as well as host stand-alone meetings/tours.  The EM Roundtable and STGWG met in Santa Fe this May and toured Sandia National Laboratory and the Cochite reservation.
  • DOE sponsored a Tribal Workshop on RW issues in Denver this April to encourage more tribal involvement and discover appropriate communications processes.  DOE may continue this tradition to better engage tribes.

HLWWG meetings - usually twice a year.  Our last full meeting took place in San Diego and was a joint collaboration with the Southern States Energy Board and the Western Governors' Association.  We always invite our colleague stakeholders to join our meetings to provide updates on their work plans. 

NCSL staff also invited a few members of the HLWWG Executive Committee to join NCSL's Fall Forum in San Antonio in December, where the Agriculture, Environment, and Energy Committee (AEE) took up NCSL's Radioactive Waste Management Policy.  The HLWWG is the only working group at NCSL with the authority to comment on policy and propose amendments.  This issue area is highly technical; it is important to have a group specifically dedicated to it to provide accurate, balanced information.

The HLWWG took its role very seriously and in the months before Fall Forum, the entire working group was provided the Radioactive Waste Mgmt Policy for review.  Legislators proposed changes/updates, vetted them with experts in the field, and came to consensus on several recommendations.  Three members of the Executive Committee presented the working group's recommendations to the full AEE committee in San Antonio last December - and every amendment was adopted by the committee.  The new policy was formalized at Annual Meeting in Boston in August 2007 and is now the guiding document for our DC staff in their federal lobbying efforts on behalf of the states over the next three years.

Wrap Up/Action Items:

• Post meeting notes/presentations on NCSL's Nuclear Waste webpage.  In the next monthly project update email, provide a link to the notes and other resources discussed at the meeting.
• Form an interim storage "subcommittee" of HLWWG members to further study the issue.
• Further review the issue of classification and disposal of Greater Than Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste and DOE's plans to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement on potential sites for disposal.
• Review NAS-NRSB report on spent fuel reprocessing.  Include summary on website and presentation at next HLWWG meeting.
• Next meeting of full HLWWG - greatest consensus on recommendations for the location/date of the next HLWWG meeting was visiting the WIPP site in New Mexico in mid-late June, 2008.  NCSL staff will continue to take recommendations through the end of 2007.