Nuclear Waste Policy Recommendations from Blue Ribbon CommissionANS Nuclear CafeMay 18, 2011, 6:00AM|Jim HopfOn May 13, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future released its draft conclusions and recommendations. Despite its more general sounding title, the commission's work mostly concerned the nuclear waste issue. It was created by President Obama's administration primarily to investigate alternatives to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, after the administration moved to shut that program down. While the commission did release some recommendations on other issues such as advanced reactors and Fukishima, this post will focus on its recommendations concerning nuclear waste policy.Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendationsA summary of the key conclusions and recommendations is as follows:One or more geologic repositories must be sited and developed at some point. No foreseeable future reactor and/or fuel cycle technology will avoid the need for at least one final repository. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final nuclear waste disposition. The process for siting and developing the repository should be objective and scientific. The performance standards for any repository should be set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency (as they are now). Repository siting should be consent-based, with all levels of government (federal, state, and local) involved in all parts of the process, from the very beginning.One or more centralized interim storage sites for used fuel should be developed. The fuel would be stored at these sites for up to ~100 years. Such facilities should be developed and licensed using the same standards and methods used to develop a repository. Decommissioned plants should be first in line to have their used fuel taken to a centralized storage facility. There are, however, no technical or safety reasons why used fuel can not be stored at the plant sites, for a similar period.There should be a sustained, federally supported R&D effort to develop advanced reactors and fuel cycles. While not eliminating the need for at least one repository, such technology development can increase safety, reduce costs, improve resource utilization, and minimize proliferation risks.A new, independent organization should be created to site and develop the repository and centralized storage facilities, along with any waste storage and transportation infrastructure. The new organization would be more independent of the government (i.e., the Department of Energy). It would have more institutional and programmatic stability. The organization would have assured, steady access to the Nuclear Waste Fund to perform the necessary activities.Any real answers-or just stalling?All in all, there is not much in the way of new insights here. The recommendation for long-term used fuel storage (to allow the repository issue to be kicked down the road) was expected from the very beginning. They say that siting of repositories or centralized storage facilities should be consent based, but do not offer much new in terms of solving the (so far) intractable problem of getting such consent. The commission also doesn't explain how or why it will be significantly less difficult to site centralized storage facilities than it was (or will be) to site a repository. History suggests that it won't.Yucca Mountain, north crestExperience shows that problems with siting always occur at the state level. Many may be surprised to learn that such projects generally have support at the local level (from both the people and the government). As with nuclear power plants, Yucca Mountain enjoyed support in the local, rural communities. The reason for this is that the benefits to the local area, in terms of jobs and tax base, etc., are significant. On the state level, such benefits are much more diluted, but since there is only one repository in the United States, the state still feels singled out and put upon, and has fears of being stigmatized.My understanding is that in Scandinavia-the one place where consent appears to have been obtained to build repositories-there is no "state" government, just federal and local. Is that a coincidence? I think not.The one thing the commission recommends that tries to take a stab at the consent problem is the suggestion that the waste be handled by a new "objective" and "independent" organization. Over the years, some distrust has developed between some populations and the DOE (mainly in the West, due to weapons testing, etc.). Getting the DOE out of the picture could help somewhat, but I don't see it fundamentally altering the situation described above.The commission also does not do much to clarify any significant benefits of setting up centralized storage facilities, as opposed to just leaving the used fuel in storage at the plant sites. In addition to the significant cost of siting and developing the central storage facilities and moving the fuel there, the waste transport involved will generate significant political resistance. Why would anyone decide to spend a large amount of political capital to do this? As the commission itself states, the risks-and costs-of just keeping the fuel in dry storage at the plant sites is very low.It appears (to me) that the main impetus behind the centralized storage idea is to appear to be "doing something" about the waste issue, now that the repository has been delayed by decades. My personal view is that this will not happen (due to the lack of any real justification), and the used fuel will remain stored at the plant sites.Yucca MountainThe fact that Yucca Mountain was not even considered by the Blue Ribbon Commission is unfortunate. In a highly critical recently released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concludes that the administration's shutdown of the Yucca program was for purely political (as opposed to scientific or technical) reasons. The GAO also concludes that the Yucca decision will put us back to square one in terms of siting and developing a repository, which will result in decades of delay, as well as wasting most of the money spent so far on the program. It will also result in larger amounts of fuel being stored at plant sites, for much longer periods. For the above reasons, the GAO report recommended that the administration consider restarting the Yucca program.Many other parties are also bitterly opposed to the abrupt and political termination of the Yucca program. Many assert that the DOE did not have the authority (under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act) to withdraw the Yucca license application, and that the NRC does not have the authority to stop the licensing review. Lawsuits have already been filed. Also, congressional investigations of the NRC and the DOE have started. There is a good chance that the DOE will be ordered to restart the program, or that the NRC will be ordered to finish the licensing process.In addition to the issues identified by the GAO report, one of the main (if not THE main) impact of starting over on the repository is that it will allow one of the most potent arguments against nuclear energy to live on for decades. A large fraction of the public believes that the nuclear waste problem is intractable, and that there is no technological solution. This is not true. The Blue Ribbon Commission concurred (with the GAO) that the main obstacles to repository siting are political, as opposed to scientific. Despite scientific opinion, until a repository is sited and licensed, many people will continue to believe that there is no solution, which will result in significantly more opposition to new nuclear power plants, and more use of (truly damaging) fossil fuels in the future.A possible compromise?The concern raised above has me thinking about a possible compromise on Yucca that could be of some value. While I believe that proceeding with Yucca is the best option, another option (that would be far better than nothing) would be to have the NRC complete the licensing process (and approve the repository, presumably). The administration would then state that although Yucca has been shown to be an acceptable long-term solution, they believe that there are (even) better solutions (e.g., reprocessing) that should be pursued instead. To that end, the fuel will be stored for a few more decades while those other options are explored. If nothing pans out, there is always the (acceptable) Yucca option.Such an approach would let Nevada get its way in terms of avoiding (or at least greatly delaying) the Yucca repository, but it may go a long way toward alleviating public concerns over the "intractable" nuclear waste problem. It's possible that this could eliminate most of the opposition to nuclear that is due to waste concerns. Many would argue that Nevada would never go for such a deal, since NRC approval would carry too much political weight in terms of restarting the program. On the other hand, as I discussed earlier, the courts and/or congressional pressure/investigations may end up forcing the NRC to complete the licensing review anyway.____________________________________________________HopfJim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer at EnergySolutions, with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.Tags:dc perspectivedepartment of energynuclear fuel cyclespent fuelspent nuclear fuel reprocessingyucca mountainShare:LinkedInTwitterFacebook
DOE releases blueprint for advancing U.S. nuclearThe Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) last week released its Strategic Vision report, outlining its plan to support the current U.S. reactor fleet, demonstrate the latest innovations in nuclear energy technologies, and explore new market opportunities for nuclear energy.The 36-page document identifies five goals to address challenges in the nuclear energy sector, help realize the potential of advanced technology, and leverage the unique role of the federal government in sparking innovation. Each goal also includes supporting objectives to ensure progress.Go to Article
Texas congressman weighs in on Yucca MountainBurgessThe U.S. Congress has failed to uphold its promise to fully fund Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel, Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R., Texas) writes in an op-ed article published on December 8 in the Dallas Morning News.More than three decades after passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Congress has yet to fully fund the Yucca Mountain Project. Burgess points out that while some countries have found success with reprocessing spent fuels, the fission process will always produce some amount of material that must be safely disposed, making it necessary to find a permanent solution.Go to Article
Nevada senators reiterate opposition to Yucca MountainCortez MastoRosenU.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D., Nev.) and Jacky Rosen (D., Nev.) sent a letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) to reiterate their annual request that zero funds be appropriated to support licensing activities for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in fiscal year 2021.Earlier this year, Cortez Masto along with a majority of Nevada’s congressional delegation, including Rosen, reintroduced the Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act. The bill would require the secretary of energy to obtain the consent of affected state and local governments, as well as tribal leaders, before making expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository.Go to Article
Yucca Mountain is not dead, Shimkus saysShimkusFor more than two decades, one of the country’s biggest champions of the Yucca Mountain Project has been Rep. John Shimkus (R., Ill.), who is retiring from Congress this year. Shimkus spoke with E&E News about how he is not ready to give up on the Nevada repository in an article posted to the energy and environment news organization’s website on October 20.“It’s never dead,” Shimkus said. “It’s the law of the land."Go to Article
NRC approves Yucca Mountain roadmapYucca Mountain in Neveda.The commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted 3-2 in favor of a recommendation by agency staff to produce a knowledge management “roadmap” for the suspended Yucca Mountain license review. According to NRC staff, the roadmap, which would focus on the regulatory and technical bases of the NRC’s review of the proposed high-level waste repository, would assist staff in resuming licensing work should Congress appropriate funds to do so. The NRC staff said that the document would be completed within a year.The staff proposes to use $164,000 from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) to develop the document. The staff’s proposal, along with the voting records of the NRC commissioners, was posted to the NRC’s ADAMS website on October 9.Go to Article
U.S., Russia finalize amendment to uranium import agreementThe U.S. Department of Commerce and Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, have signed a final amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation. The amendment extends the 1992 pact through 2040 and reduces U.S. reliance on uranium from Russia during that time period, the DOC announced October 6.Previously, the agreement was set to expire on December 31 of this year. According to the DOC, the document’s expiration “would have resulted in unchecked imports of Russian uranium, potentially decimating the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States.”The final amendment is unchanged from the draft version, released for public comment on September 11. (For more specifics on the amendment, see our story on the draft here.)Go to Article
What does the Supreme Court have to do with nuclear waste?The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the American Nuclear Society.As if COVID-19 and a rancorous presidential election were not enough, over the next few weeks we will also be dealing with the confirmation of a justice to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court. What does that have to do with the American Nuclear Society and nuclear technology? Well, nothing directly, but there is an interesting connection between the Supreme Court and a notable case on nuclear waste decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in August 2013.Go to Article
NRC to hold webinars in October on used fuel storage facility in TexasThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled four webinars in October to present its draft environmental findings and receive comments on Interim Storage Partners’ (ISP) proposed consolidated interim storage facility for used nuclear fuel in Andrews County, Texas.Information for the webinars will be posted on the NRC’s Public Meetings webpage. The webinars will be held at different times of the day to maximize opportunities for the public to participate and are tentatively scheduled for the following (all times are Eastern):October 1, 6 p.m. – 9 p.m.October 6, 2 p.m. – 5 p.m.October 8, 6 p.m. – 9 p.m.October 15, 11 a.m. – 2 p.m.Go to Article
Yucca Mountain? The Bulletin says to look elsewhereNoting that both presidential candidates are opposed to the Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada, David Klaus writes in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that “it is time for everyone else to accept that Yucca Mountain is finally off the table, and for the United States to begin to seriously consider realistic alternatives for safely managing the more than 80,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel currently sitting at 72 operating and shutdown commercial nuclear reactor sites across the country.”Go to Article
Be the change you want to see in the worldWhat does it mean to be a leader? That question is at the heart of the Young Professionals Congress 2019 (YPC19).Go to Article