News Summaries of Nuclear Waste Issues 

NUCLEAR unWASTEd NEWS

NCSL's Nuclear Waste Project collects news pieces of interest to state legislators and provides summaries and links below for informational purposes only; they do not necessarily reflect NCSL positions.  NUCLEAR unWASTEd NEWS is authored by Christina Nelson, Senior Policy Specialist, and Brooke Oleen, Policy Associate, in Denver, CO.   PDF files require Adobe Acrobat Reader.

2008 

Newsletter - 2nd Quarter, 2008  PDF Version

Newsletter - 1st Quarter, 2008  PDF Version

July

7/1/08            GAO Report Questions DOE Information on Tank Waste

June

6/03/08           DOE Submits Yucca Mountain License Application

The Department of Energy (DOE) announced its long-awaited submittal of a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate a deep, geologic repository for the final disposal of the country's high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 directed DOE to characterize the site at Yucca Mountain, and in 2002, Congress and President Bush designated Yucca Mountain as the sole site for development of a repository. After more than two decades of scientific study and state/tribal interaction on the project, DOE submitted the license application this week, along with a Final Environmental Impact Statement and approximately 200 key documents. More than 3.6 million documents related to the Yucca Mountain repository are available to the public on the NRC's Licensing Support Network.

The license application outlines DOE's plans to dispose of spent fuel and high-level waste in a series of tunnels beneath the surface of the earth. Currently, the material is stored at 121 commercial nuclear reactor sites and DOE facilities in 39 states. In a press conference about the license application release, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman stated, "We are confident that the NRC's rigorous review process will confirm that the Yucca Mountain repository will provide for the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste and will be protective of human health and the environment now and into the future." The NRC will spend up to six months reviewing the application to ensure it is complete and ready for full consideration, after which the NRC will take three to four years to examine the 8,600-page document and determine whether to grant DOE a license.

Several factors may impede smooth development of the repository at Yucca Mountain. The State of Nevada opposes the facility and plans to file more than 600 contentions against the license. Congress has also reduced the budget for the repository program in recent years, which has hindered DOE's ability to meet milestones such as constructing a railway in Nevada for transporting nuclear waste to the repository. Utility ratepayers have contributed to a Nuclear Waste Fund since the early 1980s to pay for the repository, and although the account now stands at about $20 billion, funding for the project is dependent on congressional appropriation and therefore oscillates unpredictably based on political will.

Along with funding constraints, the total inventory of waste in the United States is expected to reach the legal limit of disposal capacity at Yucca Mountain by 2010. DOE hopes to expand the statutory cap of 70,000 metric tons to a volume (perhaps double the current limit) based on scientific feasibility to maximize use of the mountain. Several federal bills have been proposed to address the capacity issue, access to the Nuclear Waste Fund and other potential barriers.

The DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which directs the Yucca Mountain project, does not expect the national repository to be up and running until at least 2020. Debates about the best way to manage nuclear waste will likely continue over the decade to come, and states will determine for themselves whether to promote or oppose new nuclear power based in part on the level of confidence they have in the federal government's plans for the ultimate disposal of radioactive waste.

Licensing Support Network (Application)
DOE Press Release
Other LA Info (DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management)

May

5/05/08            Minnesota Legislature Considers Abolishing Nuclear Plant Ban

Concerns about climate change are factoring into state legislative conversations about how to responsibly provide for a growing energy demand. One energy source receiving renewed attention, nuclear, faces some form of restriction in at least 20 states. Since many of these restrictions (e.g., requiring the Public Utility Commission, state voters or the legislature to approve construction of new plants) were enacted decades ago, reactor designs have become safer and more efficient while the need for power sources that do not produce carbon emisions has increased. Some states historically opposed to nuclear power are giving it another look.

Minnesota is the only state that completely prohibits construction of new nuclear power plants. The state has three operating nuclear reactors on two sites, all built in the early 1970s, that provide slightly more than one quarter of the state's electricity. Monticello's plant life was recently extended to 2030, and Prairie Island plans to submit a 20-year license extension for its two reactors this year. Many of the 31 states that host the 104 aging nuclear reactors in operation around the country today are also contemplating whether to renew or replace their electric generating capacity.

The Minnesota Legislature held hearings this session on the role of nuclear power in the state's future energy portfolio, and testimony was presented on new plant designs and safety technologies. House Energy Finance and Policy Division chair Representative Bill Hilty, believes the whole process—from the costs of construction to emissions from uranium drilling for nuclear fuel—needs to be fully vetted before the Legislature makes any decision on the state's moratorium. The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to adjourn for the year in May, but Hilty plans to hold several legislative discussions on nuclear power in future sessions and expects the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force and various House and Senate committees to do the same in the interim and in years to come.

The Minnesota Legislature considered three bills this year related to nuclear energy. Two (S.F. 2545 and S.F. 2630) sought to abolish the current prohibition on the Public Utilities Commission from issuing certificates of need for new nuclear power plants. The other (S.F. 3209) urged the president and Congress to promote and support the nuclear electric generation industry. All three bills were sent to the Senate Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee in February and have yet to see further action.

In the past, similar proposals to expand nuclear power in Minnesota were rejected, but lawmakers in the state have seemed more eager in recent years to find compromises between environmentalists' concerns with greenhouse gas emissions and the concerns of those who must maintain the state's electricity supply amid growing demand. Ed Garvey, director of the Minnesota Office of Energy Security, has supported Governor Tim Pawlenty's interest to lift the nuclear ban, and the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group also recommended considering adding more nuclear to the energy mix to help meet state carbon reduction goals.

But several legislators are not yet sold on the idea of a nuclear renaissance, and instead support alternative efforts to meet or reduce energy demand, such as investing in renewable resources and encouraging energy conservation and efficiency. Representative Phyllis Kahn has raised questions about the radioactive waste resulting from nuclear energy generation, which remains onsite at reactors across the country while the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) struggles to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., over the state's objections. There are also financial concerns related to the significant up-front costs of building a nuclear plant—about $4 billion to $6 billion—which federal subsidies aim to make more palatable to investors.

Interest in most renewables such as sun and wind, however, do not address baseload capacity issues—or the need for energy to be available from a constant source. Most electricity in the country currently comes from sources that do offer baseload capacity, such as coal (50 percent), but that also create carbon emissions. If the goal is to reduce fossil fuel use but maintain a constant source of energy, nuclear is one method that fits the bill. As Richard Reister of the DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative explains: “Baseload is essentially nuclear, hydro or coal. Hydro is tapped out. It’s very difficult to build a coal plant now in any of the states because of concerns over carbon emissions. So what you’re left with, really, is nuclear.”

Most lawmakers around the country are seeking a mix of sources that meet energy needs, reduce carbon emissions and are safe for human health and the environment. The National Conference of State Legislatures hosts an Energy Summit each year to tackle these complex issues and inform legislators of policy options to address them.

News Article Twin Cities Daily Planet
Minnesota Legislation: S.F. 2545, S.F. 2630, S.F. 3209

April

4/3/08              Idaho Wins Court Decision on Nuclear Waste Cleanup

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the state of Idaho that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must remove all transuranic waste from the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

Transuranic waste (rags and other debris contaminated with radioactive elements heavier than uranium) that resulted from Cold War nuclear weapons production was shipped to INL from the Rocky Flats weapons site in Colorado in the 1950s through 1970s.  Some of the waste was stored above ground and is now being packaged for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M., for disposal.  Other transuranic waste was buried under about 36 acres at INL.  Disagreement between the state and DOE lies with how to manage this buried waste.

The burial method used several decades ago involved putting the waste in unlined pits located about 600 feet over the Snake River aquifer in southeast Idaho.  DOE claims that the expense to remove all waste (about $13 billion) and the additional radiation exposure to workers could be avoided by removing only a portion of the waste (from about five acres) and covering the rest with a barrier to prevent leakages into the aquifer.

The federal court determined that a 1995 agreement among Idaho, DOE and the U.S. Navy stipulated removal of all transuranic waste and applied to both above-ground and buried wastes.  Idaho had halted shipments of transuranic waste into the state in the 1980s, but in 1995 agreed to accept limited shipments in return for DOE cleaning up the site and removing the waste by 2018.

The U.S. Justice Department is reviewing the ruling, and may seek an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  A draft cleanup plan by the parties involved is due June 1, after which state and federal regulators may provide comments before arrangements for cleanup are finalized.

Source: "Federal Court Agrees With Idaho Stand That All Transuranic Waste Must Go," Nuclear Waste News vol. 28, no. 7 (March 31, 2008): 1, 3.

March

3/27/08            NNSA Complex Transformation

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a vision to create a smaller, more secure and cost effective nuclear weapons complex.  Within several years, the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile will be reduced by roughly 50 percent from its 2001 level, making it the smallest since the 1950s.

Congress created the NNSA within the U.S. Department of Energy in 2000 to maintain the security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, reduce global access to weapons-grade materials and respond to radiological emergencies.  NNSA also provides nuclear propulsion capability to the U.S. Navy.

The NNSA complex of eight major facilities in five states is too large and costly to maintain under current funding.  Many facilities no longer are in use and, because the storage of nuclear material is spread among several sites across the country, the expense of securing and monitoring the material is compounded.  To make better use of its funds without compromising its mission, NNSA has studied consolidating facilities to allow management of a smaller, more efficient complex. 

NNSA administrator Thomas P. D’Agostino said the plan involves “…a shift from nuclear warheads to nuclear security.”  It focuses on future national security requirements, such as nonproliferation and counterterrorism, while maintaining a reduced but effective nuclear stockpile.

NNSA released a draft supplemental programmatic environmental impact statement (SPEIS) in January 2008 that evaluated four alternatives for accomplishing its goals, including leaving the complex as is.  The preferred alternative chosen was "distributed centers of excellence," which would involve consolidating missions and facilities within existing NNSA sites.  This approach would save funds by trimming redundancies in missions, capabilities and facilities.

NNSA’s plan includes:

• Consolidating special nuclear materials at five sites by the end of 2012, then reducing the area used within those five sites by 2017;
• Closing or transferring from weapons activities nearly 600 buildings and structures;
• Ending operations of two prime testing sites that support U.S. laboratories by 2015;
• Reducing the square footage of old, outdated buildings and structures that support weapons missions by one-third, from 35 million square feet to fewer than 26 million square feet;
• Operating with 20 percent to30 percent fewer employees; and
• Dismantling nuclear weapons more quickly.

Reduction and transfer of missions will affect all eight current sites, which include Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California; Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and California; Pantex Plant in Texas; Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee; Kansas City Plant in Missouri; Savannah River Site in South Carolina; and Nevada Test Site in Nevada.

A public comment period on the SPEIS is open through April 10, 2008.

Complex Transformation SPEIS links
NNSA Webpage on Transformation
Katherine Ling, "DOE looks to future of weapons complex," Environment and Energy Daily (Dec. 18, 2008). Link - subscription required

 

3/21/08            DOE discusses combining Yucca Mountain and GNEP under a Government Corporation

Ward Sproat, director of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Yucca Mountain project, suggested recently that discussions are taking place within the department and on Capitol Hill about restructuring U.S. nuclear waste management.  Yucca Mountain, the proposed location for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), envisioned to close the nuclear fuel cycle by reprocessing spent fuel for reuse, would be combined under a government corporation similar in design to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Dennis Spurgeon, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, has made presentations on the concept to congressional members and staff.  Although the specifics are yet to be defined, the general concept involves establishing a "new government entity" (NGE) to take nuclear waste management from the political realm into a more structured management and funding environment.  The Yucca Mountain project has struggled during the past two decades with persistent legal and political setbacks.  The Nuclear Waste Fund, established to receive contributions from utility ratepayers to dispose of spent fuel, may be tapped only through congressional appropriation, which requires support from legislative leaders.  Direction of the project through political appointees also has stifled progress due to a lack of management stability and continuity of knowledge.  Much of the "wheel" has been recreated with each new administration.

Many questions remain as to what powers the NGE would have and how it would interact with industry to accomplish its mission.  The main purpose of the entity would be to manage the back end of the fuel cycle - reprocessing spent fuel and constructing and operating a repository for final nuclear waste disposal.  It is uncertain whether the NGE would be given control of the Nuclear Waste Fund - its balance now is $20 billion - to pay for these activities.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which established the fund to pay for a repository, also allows the money to be used to condition fuel for disposal.  Historically, Congress has protected its control of the fund, which continues to be counted against the federal deficit despite its targeted purpose for disposal of nuclear waste. 

Although action in an election year and at this stage of the congressional cycle for fiscal year 2008 is unlikely, Senators George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.) plan to host a roundtable discussion on the NGE and use feedback to develop a future legislative proposal.

Source: "Yucca-GNEP merger discussed on Capitol Hill," Platt's Nuclear Fuel, vol. 33, no. 6 (March 24, 2008): 1, 18-19.

 

February

2/29/08            CRS Report Assesses Global Access to Nuclear Power

With the heralding of a coming nuclear renaissance in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Congressional Research Service released a report in January titled, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding Global Access to Nuclear Power. 

The 2005 Energy Policy Act outlined provisions authorizing streamlined licensing for new nuclear plants, combining construction and operating permits, and providing tax credits for nuclear power.  Thirty new applications or early site permits for reactors have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 150 have been planned or proposed globally.  Nearly a dozen are already under construction overseas.  With the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) planning to spend billions of dollars to advance nuclear technology in the U.S., other countries have similar ideas and want access to the benefits of nuclear power.

Advances in nuclear technologies are attractive to those who seek to add energy options to the mostly fossil fuel generation the world depends on today.  Concerns about climate change, however, are complicated by fears that spreading enrichment and reprocessing technologies may lead to proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material.

Proposals of global access to nuclear power range from: offering countries access to nuclear power with a formal commitment to abstain from enrichment and reprocessing; to a de facto approach where a country does not operate fuel cycle facilities but makes no direct commitment to other nations; to nations having no restrictions at all.  A change in U.S. policy, recently proposed through GNEP, would not require countries to refrain from developing domestic fuel cycle programs.  It remains to be seen whether developing countries will forgo what some believe is their right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. 

The Congressional Research Service report finds that the U.S. Congress will have ample control in at least four areas of current fuel cycle proposals.  The first is related to expanding nuclear energy within the United States, as Congress holds the purse strings for supporting the renaissance, and has a measure of oversight in domestic nuclear programs.  The second also involves funding, but of international programs to assure an adequate fuel supply.  Congress will also set policy regarding implementation of the international piece of GNEP.  And finally, Congress will have a role in approving nuclear cooperation agreements between nations.

CRS Report

January

Bill link for S.2551 (must type in bill number for search) 
Also referenced: 
Platts NuclearFuel, "Funding cuts increase Yucca Mt. uncertainty," vol. 33, no. 2 (January 28, 2008): 1 and 8.
Platts NuclearFuel, "Inhofe introduces waste legislation aimed at fast-tracking Yucca project," vol. 33, no. 2 (January 28, 2008): 9.
Katherine Ling, "Yucca Mountain: New Senate bill strives to accelerate licensing," Environment and Energy Daily (January 25, 2008).  Link - subscription required

1/24/08            State Senators Propose Nuclear Plant Safety Study and Siting for Nuclear Waste Storage

Vermont Senate President Pro Tem, Peter Shumlin, and Senator Jeannette White co-sponsored two bills this session pertaining to activity at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. 

Bill S.269 seeks to require Entergy Nuclear, the operator of Vermont Yankee, to provide an independent safety assessment of the plant before it requests approval from the Public Service Board to operate beyond its original license expiration date of 2012.  While the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has authority over the site's license extension, state law requires that requests for such extensions come 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.  The legislature will ultimately vote to determine the plant's fate.

Bill S.294 requires the Department of Public Service, in consultation with the Agency of Natural Resources, to present a recommended process for the optimal siting of a dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel within the state.  The Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool (where used fuel is taken from the reactor core to cool for several years before storage or disposal) is filling; Entergy plans to store the oldest fuel awaiting receipt by the Department of Energy (DOE) in dry casks on-site.

The Energy Department was contractually obligated to take spent fuel from commercial reactor sites by January 1998, but has run into legal hurdles in developing Yucca Mountain, the designated geologic repository for such waste.  The director of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management responsible for the Yucca Mountain Project, Ward Sproat, spoke before the Nevada High-Level Radioactive Waste Committee last week.  Sproat mentioned laying off 500-plus employees, of the roughly 2,400 working on the project, due to federal budget cuts of more than 20 percent for fiscal year 2008.  Funding cuts have shifted the best achievable date for opening the repository to some yet unknown date beyond the previous 2017 goal.  (NCSL staff also testified at the hearing on state radioactive waste concerns and priorities.)  Because of the perpetual delays and uncertainty as to when DOE might accept Vermont Yankee's waste, Senator Shumlin believes it is time for the state to act in siting its own storage facility. 

Robert Williams, spokesperson for Entergy Nuclear, believes the two bills are unnecessary.  Speaking about S.269 (requiring an independent safety assessment), Williams said, "There is no indication in any of the reports of the plant's condition or performance indicators that would say the additional inspection is necessary."  As to S.294 (seeking an optimal storage site), Williams stated: "Our site is obviously preferable.  It's licensed for nuclear operations and it's in a high security area.  The pad [for dry cask storage] is already constructed."

Senators Shumlin and White would like the terms of the independent safety assessment defined by May, before the legislature adjourns.  They would like the components of the optimal siting of the in-state, dry cask storage facility defined no later than January 15, 2009.  Both bills were introduced on January 8, and currently reside in their respective committees of jurisdiction.

Bill link S.0269
Bill link S.0294
News Article Rutland Herald

2007

Newsletter - 4th Quarter, 2007 PDF Version	Newsletter - 3rd Quarter, 2007 PDF Version
Newsletter - 2nd Quarter, 2007 PDF Version	Newsletter - 1st Quarter, 2007 PDF Version

December

12/07/07         NRC Considers License to Import Rad Waste from Italy

EnergySolutions, a Utah-based nuclear fuel cycle services company, has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to import 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from Italy.  The company plans to receive the waste over a five-year period at ports in New Orleans and Charleston, SC, and transport it by truck, rail, or barge to a facility in Tennessee for processing, burning, and recycling.  About 1,600 tons of remaining LLW would then be sent to an EnergySolutions disposal facility in Clive, Utah.

Federal and state lawmakers have raised questions about peculiarities in the license and permit request.  The origin of the waste from Italy is not certain, and the radioactive composition will not be known until it reaches U.S. ports.  It is also uncertain whether the resulting waste, after being processed in Tennessee, will meet acceptance requirements at the Utah facility, which only takes the least hazardous, lowest concentration LLW (Class A).  EnergySolutions accounts for these concerns with a request to NRC that waste may be repatriated back to Italy in the rare case that it does not meet U.S. and Utah standards.

Although the NRC has administered many similar import licenses in the past, it plans to gain insight over the next six months from the experience and interests of federal agencies and states and regions affected by the acceptance, transfer, and disposal of foreign nuclear waste.  Representatives Joe Barton (TX) and Ed Whitfield (KY), members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have already sent a letter of concern to the NRC about the origin, composition, and potential return of the waste.  Other Congress members have expressed apprehension about what affect this acceptance will have on capacity for U.S. origin LLW disposal.  EnergySolutions Chief Executive Officer, Steve Creamer, recently stated there is capacity at the landfill for another 35 years.

Utah policymakers seem less reluctant to accept the waste should it meet all state requirements.  Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. believes EnergySolutions may take waste from anywhere in the world so long as it meets Utah radiation limits and does not exceed the one-square mile of land allocated for disposal at the site.  Utah State Senator Curt Bramble mirrored this sentiment by stating, "I'm not concerned about where it comes from.  I'm concerned about them meeting state statutes."

Salt Lake Tribune article  
Also referenced: Nuclear Waste News, "Lawmakers Question Plan to Import Rad Waste from Italy," Vol. 27 No. 24, December 3, 2007, pgs. 195-196.

November

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           NRC Licensing Requirements Differ Based on Court Jurisdiction

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.

    

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