Another Hearing On Trying To Revive Yucca Mountain

Sep 10: The House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing on "Implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act – Next Steps." The hearing comes on the heels of the August 13 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must resume its review of the Department of Energy's license application for the Yucca Mountain repository, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [See WIMS 8/13/13]. NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane testified along with Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons on their plans to comply with the court's order. 

    According to a Republican release, Yucca Mountain has long enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and members of the committee urged NRC and DOE to follow the law and move forward with efforts to build the repository. Committee members believe the first step in complying with the court's mandate is for NRC to complete the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on Yucca Mountain and release it publicly. Former NRC chairman Gregory Jazcko ceased the staff's review of the license application one month before a key volume of this safety report was scheduled for release. NRC staff previously testified that the commission currently has the funds on hand to complete the SER and provide the public the first independent agency assessment of the Yucca application.

    Full committee chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Congress needs the opportunity to examine the NRC's long-overdue unredacted technical analysis, and the public who paid for it deserve to know the report's conclusions. During the three years the administration has been suppressing this document, Congress has been denied an informed discussion about next steps. … The path forward is unmistakable. Compliance with the law is not optional. Despite the court's ruling and the funds available for the license review, Chairman Macfarlane refused to commit to issuing the all-important safety report. When asked by Chairman Shimkus if she saw a scenario where the NRC would decide not issue the SER, Macfarlane responded, "We are still deliberating on that."

    Chairman Shimkus expressed concern about the potential for the commission to engage in stall tactics saying, "Here we are, nearly a month after the DC Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, and the NRC's only action we've seen so far is to invite the parties to comment by September 30. Electricity consumers and taxpayers have waited 30 years and paid $15 billion dollars to find out whether our independent nuclear safety regulator concluded that Yucca Mountain would be safe or not. Releasing the SER is the next step in the NRC's process. The NRC has the money to do it, a federal court has ruled that the NRC must proceed, and the NRC says 'hold on, let's ask the parties what they think'. … I strongly believe the NRC's first order of business is to complete and release the Safety Evaluation Report. Transparency in this matter is essential to rebuilding the agency's reputation as an independent and objective regulator."

    Republicans indicated that the committee will continue to hold the administration accountable to following the law, and both NRC and DOE committed to providing the committee with monthly reports detailing actions and expenditures concerning resumption of the license review. Representative Upton concluded, "This issue has enjoyed a long history of bipartisanship and we will work to continue that tradition until the job gets done."

    Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued a statement and background document. He said, "Our nuclear waste laws are not working. Instead of holding yet another hearing on Yucca Mountain, this Committee should be working to reform them. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the sole site to be considered for a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste. There was no Plan B. This decision to short-circuit the site selection process was widely viewed as political and provoked strong opposition in Nevada. Twenty-five years later, it is clear that this top-down approach has broken down."

    Rep. Waxman cited the work of the Blue Ribbon Commission and  the recommendations that resulted from their two-year effort. He said Energy Secretary Moniz has testified about DOE's strategy for implementing many of those recommendations and argued that a consent-based approach to siting was essential. "Answering these questions requires an open mind and a willingness to move past a narrow obsession with Yucca Mountain. But this Committee seems fixated on Yucca. . . The reality is that the Court decision has not really changed anything. The decision does nothing to reduce the longstanding public opposition to Yucca Mountain. It does not establish a consent-based siting process or a new organization to focus on the waste problem. And it does not solve the tricky funding and appropriations issues to make sure that the funds put aside for constructing a repository or storage facility can actually be used for that purpose. A court decision was never going to resolve any of these issues. . . Yucca Mountain has become a hopelessly divisive issue. The sooner we recognize this and start considering true reform, the sooner we will be able to fulfill our responsibility to craft a sustainable nuclear waste policy for the nation."

    Access a release from Committee Republicans (click here). Access the Republican website for the hearing with links to testimony, background and video (click here). Access the Democrat website for the hearing with links to testimony, background and video (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

House Hearing Focuses On Nuclear Waste Disposal

Apr 11: The House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies, held a hearing on Nuclear Programs and Strategies that focused for the most part on siting and developing a high-level nuclear waste disposal site. Witnesses included representative from the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board; Member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff; Department of Energy staff; and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO's testimony provides background and was summarized in a report entitled, Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Observations on the Key Attributes and Challenges of Storage and Disposal Options (GAO-13-532T, Apr 11, 2013).

 

    GAO indicates that spent nuclear fuel, the used fuel removed from commercial nuclear power reactors, is one of the most hazardous substances created by humans. Commercial reactors have generated nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel, which is currently stored at 75 reactor sites in 33 states, and this inventory is expected to more than double by 2055. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, directs DOE to investigate the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada --100 miles northwest of Las Vegas -- to determine if the site is suitable for a permanent repository for this and other nuclear waste. DOE submitted a license application for the Yucca Mountain site to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, but in 2010 DOE suspended its licensing efforts and instead established a Blue Ribbon Commission to study other options. The commission issued a report in January 2012 recommending a new strategy for managing nuclear waste, and DOE issued a new nuclear waste disposal strategy in 2013.

 

    GAO testified that in November 2009, it reported on the attributes and challenges of a Yucca Mountain repository. A key attribute identified was that the Department of Energy (DOE) had spent significant resources to carry out design, engineering, and testing activities on the Yucca Mountain site and had completed a license application and submitted it to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory authority over the construction, operation, and closure of a repository. If the repository had been built as planned, GAO concluded that it would have provided a permanent solution for the nation's commercial nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste and minimized the uncertainty of future waste safety. Constructing the repository also could have helped address issues including federal liabilities resulting from industry lawsuits against DOE related to continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites. However, not having the support of the administration and the state of Nevada proved a key challenge. As GAO reported in April 2011, DOE officials did not cite technical or safety issues with the Yucca Mountain repository project when the project's termination was announced but instead stated that other solutions could achieve broader support.

    Temporarily storing spent fuel in a central location offers several positive attributes, as well as challenges, as GAO reported in November 2009 and August 2012. Positive attributes include allowing DOE to consolidate the nation's nuclear waste after reactors are decommissioned. Consolidation would decrease the complexity of securing and overseeing the waste located at reactor sites around the nation and would allow DOE to begin to address the taxpayer financial liabilities stemming from industry lawsuits. Interim storage could also provide the nation with some flexibility to consider alternative policies or new technologies. However, interim storage faces several challenges. First, DOE's statutory authority to develop interim storage is uncertain. Provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, that allow DOE to arrange for centralized interim storage have either expired or are unusable because they are tied to milestones in repository development that have not been met. Second, siting an interim storage facility could prove difficult. Even if a community might be willing to host a centralized interim storage facility, finding a state that would be willing to host such a facility could be challenging, particularly since some states have voiced concerns that an interim facility could become a de facto permanent disposal site. Third, interim storage may also present transportation challenges since it is likely that the spent fuel would have to be transported twice -- once to the interim storage site and once to a permanent disposal site. Finally, developing centralized interim storage would not ultimately preclude the need for a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel.

    Siting, licensing, and developing a permanent repository at a location other than Yucca Mountain could provide the opportunity to find a location that might achieve broader acceptance, as GAO reported in November 2009 and August 2012, and could help avoid costly delays experienced by the Yucca Mountain repository program. However, developing an alternative repository would restart the likely costly and time-consuming process of developing a repository. It is also unclear whether the Nuclear Waste Fund--established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, to pay industry's share of the cost for the Yucca Mountain repository--will be sufficient to fund a repository at another site.

    University of Michigan professor Rodney Ewing, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board addressed issues relating to: 1. What do international and U.S. experiences tell us about consent-based siting? 2. What can we learn from Yucca Mountain, technically and otherwise? 3. What is the current thinking and consensus around preferable options for nuclear waste disposal and the siting of a geologic repository? He summarized his testimony saying, "I would observe that not using a consent-based approach for repository siting can slow the process or lead to delay or failure, but using a consent-based process does not guarantee that a repository will be successfully sited. Programs in other countries are using a variety of consent-based approaches, with mixed results. Deep-mined geologic disposal remains the approach that is being pursued by most of the countries with nuclear waste programs, worldwide, and a deep geologic repository will be needed regardless of the fuel cycle option selected. The only operating deep-mined geologic repository in the world for disposal of radioactive waste is the WIPP [Waste Isolation Pilot Plant] facility in New Mexico, and important lessons can be taken from the development of that facility. Finally, ongoing, independent technical oversight of the activities undertaken by the implementer of a consent-based repository-siting program is crucial, regardless of whether the implementing entity is a government agency, a non-governmental organization, or a federal corporation."

    DOE testified that, "The Administration looks forward to working with this Subcommittee and other members of Congress on crafting a path forward for used nuclear fuel and high-level waste management and disposal. This progress is critical to assure that the benefits of nuclear power are available to current and future generations." DOE said the President's FY 2014 budget request includes a multi-part proposal to move ahead with developing the nation's used nuclear fuel and high-level waste management system outlined in the Administration's Strategy [See WIMS 1/14/13]. First, it lays out a comprehensive funding reform proposal. As described in the Strategy, the Administration's proposal includes three elements for funding reform: ongoing discretionary appropriations, reclassification of existing annual fees from mandatory to discretionary or a direct mandatory appropriation, and access to the balance of the nuclear waste fund. Included in the amounts that would be made available under this proposal, are defense funds to pay for the management and disposal of government-owned wastes within the overall system. In total, the Administration proposes $5.6 billion in spending to implement the strategy over the next 10 years.

 

    The representative from the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) said, "Development of consolidated storage capability was one of many of the Commission's recommendations incorporated into the Administration's January 2013 Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste. The Subcommittee asked that I provide my personal views on the Administration's strategy. On balance, I was pleased to see that the Administration's strategy embraces the spirit of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations, from supporting a consent-based siting process and establishing a new waste management organization to conducting R&D on advanced fuel cycles. As noted earlier, the Administration's projected timeframe for establishing consolidated storage capability is generally consistent with the Commission's findings, though the Administration projects that development of a repository will take a decade-plus longer than the Commission believed is achievable."

 

    She said, "According to a legal analysis performed for the BRC, which I would like to submit for the record, further legislative action would not be required prior to the designation of a storage site (and potentially not until the construction phase). . . We must couple this siting effort with a renewed initiative to communicate broadly about the benefits and risks associated with the long-term management of spent fuel and high-level waste. In particular, I believe we must communicate effectively about the steps that are taken to ensure safety in the transport of radioactive wastes. During my service on the Commission I learned of the outstanding track record accumulated over decades of safe spent fuel shipments in the U.S. I firmly believe that an effective outreach program is essential to building public confidence that spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes can be safely shipped, stored and disposed in the U.S."

 

    Access links to all of the testimony (click here, See 4.11.13). Access the January 2013 Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear]

 

WIMS 24/7 News  Blogs

                   (click to access)

• White House News
• Congressional News
• Federal Agencies News
• Industry News
• Enviro Group News
• Air Quality News
• Hazardous Waste News
• Transportation News

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

You can review recent issues of eNewsUSA (click here)

Access subscription information (click here)

Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).

33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Hearing Sets Stage For Dealing With Nuclear Waste Next Year

Sep 12: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) held a hearing to receive testimony on S.3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012 introduced by Chairman Bingaman. Witnesses included: Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, co-chairman of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future, Washington, DC; Dr. Richard Meserve, president, Carnegie Institution for Science, Washington, DC; Dr. Peter Lyons, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, U.S. Department of Energy; Henry Barron, president and chief executive officer, Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, LLC, Baltimore, MD; Geoffrey Fettus, senior attorney of the nuclear program, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC.

 

    In an opening statement, Chairman Bingaman who will be retiring this year said, "S.3469 is intended to implement the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission that Secretary Chu appointed to review the nuclear waste program. The Blue Ribbon Commission issued its final report in January. This Committee heard from the two chairs of the Commission, General Brent Scowcroft and Representative Lee Hamilton, on that report in February. The Blue Ribbon Commission was worthy of its name. It was made up of 15 highly distinguished individuals from academia, from industry, and from public service. They approached their task conscientiously and diligently, and they produced a very thorough and comprehensive report. 

    "The Commission presented us with 8 clear, concise, and straightforward recommendations. I have tried to implement those recommendations in the bill that is now before us for this hearing. I worked closely with Senator Murkowski and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Alexander, in the effort. Regrettably, we were not as successful as the Blue Ribbon Commission was in reaching a unanimous, bipartisan consensus. Although we were able to agree on most issues, we could not reach an agreement on the siting process for storage facilities and how to ensure that temporary storage facilities do not become permanent substitutes for an underground repository.  With time running out in this Congress, we agreed that I should go ahead and introduce the bill as it stands, and hold this hearing on the bill, and leave it to the next Congress to continue working on the issue.

    Senator Murkowski, in her opening statement said, "While I have been skeptical regarding the need to delay progress on resolving these issues while the Blue Ribbon Commission deliberated, the Blue Ribbon Commission itself is a credible group that has produced a thoughtful report regarding how to move our Nation's spent nuclear fuel program forward. Although there may be little that is truly new in their proposals, I am optimistic that the report has ignited a heightened sense of urgency and renewed focus on these issues. As the commission's report notes, the government's failure to address our nuclear waste issues is damaging to the development of future nuclear power and simultaneously worsening our nation's financial situation. We need to act, and we need to act soon.

    "Mr. Chairman, the legislation that you introduced is indicative of months of good, productive discussions between you, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander, and myself discussing ways to address the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. I congratulate you for moving the discussion forward and putting a marker out there toward reaching that goal. While we ultimately could not bridge the issue of linking progress on interim storage and a permanent repository, I want to be clear to those following these discussions that while prospects for legislative enactment this Congress are not favorable, we will continue the effort next year and build upon the progress that the Chairman has begun.

    "I will also note that the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill contains language that seeks to move interim storage forward in a timely manner. While a short-term continuing resolution appears likely to be agreed to in the next several days, I am hopeful that the interim storage language will be included when Congress acts on the full Fiscal Year 2013 spending bills. In addition, we would be remiss if we did not examine the impact of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's remand of the NRC's Waste Confidence Decision on new license applications and license renewals and how legislation along the lines of S.3469 could help address the Court's concerns."

    The BRC Co-chair Scowcroft outlined the 8 recommendations of the Commission:

• A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
• A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
• Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
• Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
• Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
• Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.
• Support for advances in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development; and
• Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, non-proliferation, and security concerns.

    In conclusion he said, ". . .as we said to this Committee in February, the national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option and the need for a new strategy is urgent. We believe the bill that Senator Bingaman has prepared represents a very useful starting point for an important discussion."

 

    Access the statement from Sen. Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access the hearing website and link to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access various WIMS articles on nuclear waste and the BLC (click here). Access legislative details for S.3469 (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Appeals Court "Game Changer" On Nuclear Waste In NY v. NRC

Jun 8: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1045, 11-1051, 11-1056, 11-1057. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Appeals Court explains that four states, an Indian community, and a number of environmental groups petition this Court for review of a NRC rulemaking regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste. The Appeals Court rules, "We hold that the rulemaking at issue here constitutes a major federal action necessitating either an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant environmental impact. We further hold that the Commission's evaluation of the risks of spent nuclear fuel is deficient in two ways: First, in concluding that permanent storage will be available 'when necessary,' the Commission did not calculate the environmental effects of failing to secure permanent storage -- a possibility that cannot be ignored.

 

    "Second, in determining that spent fuel can safely be stored on site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a plant's license, the Commission failed to properly examine future dangers and key consequences. For these reasons, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the Commission's orders, and remand for further proceedings."

 

    The Appeals Court further concludes, "We recognize that the Commission is in a difficult position given the political problems concerning the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nonetheless, the Commission's obligations under NEPA require a more thorough analysis than provided for in the WCD [Waste Confidence Decision] Update. We note that the Commission is currently conducting an EIS regarding the environmental impacts of SNF [spent nuclear fuel] storage beyond the sixty-year post-license period at issue in this case, and some or all of the problems here may be addressed in such a rulemaking. In any event, we grant the petitions for review, vacate the WCD Update and TSR [Temporary Storage Rule], and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

 

    New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman called the decision "a landmark victory." He said the decision means that the NRC cannot license or re-license any nuclear power plant, including the Indian Point facility in Westchester County, until it examines the dangers and consequences of long-term on-site storage of nuclear waste. He said the appeals court found that the spent nuclear fuel stored on-site "poses a dangerous, long-term health and environmental risk."

    Schneiderman said, "This is a landmark victory for New Yorkers, and people across the country living in the shadows of nuclear power plants. We fought back against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rubber stamp decision to allow radioactive waste at our nation's nuclear power plants to be stored for decades after they're shut down -- and we won. The Court was clear in agreeing with my office that this type of NRC 'business as usual' is simply unacceptable. The NRC cannot turn its back on federal law and ignore its obligation to thoroughly review the environmental, public health, and safety risks related to the creation of long-term nuclear waste storage sites within our communities. Whether you're for or against re-licensing Indian Point and our nation's aging nuclear power plants, the security of our residents who live in the areas that surround these facilities is paramount. I am committed to continuing to use the full force of my office to push the NRC to fully evaluate -- and ensure -- the safety of Indian Point and our other nuclear plants."

    Schneiderman indicated that the Court of Appeals agreed with him that the NRC violated NEPA when it found -- without conducting the necessary studies -- that no significant safety or environmental impacts will result from storing highly radioactive nuclear wastes onsite at the more than 100 operating reactors around the country, including from the Indian Point reactors in Westchester County, for 60 or more years after the reactors are closed. He said the Court also found that the NRC violated the law when it found "reasonable assurance" that sufficient, licensed, off-site storage capacity will be available to dispose of nuclear power plant waste "when necessary."  Efforts to site the only nuclear waste storage facility in the United States, the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada, were suspended in 2010 and no replacement facility has yet been identified. The appeals court wrote that the NRC "apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository." 

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) one of the parties in the case said the decision will send the NRC back to square one to determine the safety and consequences of allowing nuclear reactors to produce and accumulate radioactive nuclear waste, including the potential environmental effects of the failure to develop a geologic repository. Geoff Fettus, senior project attorney in the nuclear program at NRDC said, "This is a game changer. This forces the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of producing highly radioactive nuclear waste without a long-term disposal solution. The court found: 'The Commission apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.'"

    Representative Ed Markey (D- MA) released a statement saying, "It comes as no surprise that the court has no confidence in NRC's waste confidence decision. The NRC relied on what seemed to be a faith-based methodology to conclude that highly radioactive nuclear waste can be left simply sitting in the giant swimming pools and parking lots in which it is currently stored for an additional 60 years. There was a collective failure on the part of both Congress and the Department of Energy to enable a credible, science-based search for a permanent nuclear waste repository."

    The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) Ellen Ginsberg, vice president and general counsel, made the following remarks in reaction to the ruling saying, "We are disappointed by the court's decision as we believe that the NRC supported its conclusions in the waste confidence decision. Nonetheless, we urge the commission to act expeditiously to undertake the additional environmental analysis identified by the court in the remand. We also encourage the agency to reissue the rule as soon as possible. We are pleased that the court specifically affirmed the agency's discretion to address the environmental issues in a generic fashion using an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact."

    Ironically, on June 6, Senator Pete Domenici and Dr. Pete Miller hosted the fourth and final event in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Nuclear Initiative event series -- Near-Term Progress on Nuclear Waste Management: Implementing the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. Both BPC Nuclear Initiative Co-Chairmen believe there is an urgent need to break the current stalemate on nuclear waste management in the United States and to develop an effective system to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Senator Domenici was a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which released a final report in January 2012 detailing recommendations for creating a safe, long-term solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 2/2/12].

    Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, discussed their ongoing collaboration with Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Alexander (R-TN) the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, to develop comprehensive bipartisan legislation on nuclear waste management. With taxpayer damages and liability obligations projected to reach $50 billion by 2021, Senator Murkowski expressed concern that inaction is hurting both the future of nuclear power in the United States and our country's fiscal situation. Senator Murkowski acknowledged that, while many legislators are focused solely on the potential Yucca Mountain repository, she is also looking at new options and strategies, particularly those that achieve local support.

 

    Senator Bingaman discussed the key issues that their legislative proposal will address. He emphasized the importance of having a unified, systematic approach that links interim storage to a final repository. While both Senators Bingaman and Murkowski were pessimistic about the potential to pass such legislation in this Congress, they both stressed the importance of laying out a clear legislative path forward and advancing the process one step further. Building on a successful year-long event series, the BPC Nuclear Initiative will release a high-level report this summer.

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the NY AG (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a lengthy meeting summary and links to related information from the BPC (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear, #Energy/Nuclear, #CADC]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Is It Time To Move Past The "Obsession With Yucca Mountain"?

Feb 1: The House Energy and Commerce (E&C) Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing today to discuss the final recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [BRC, See WIMS 1/27/12]. Members welcomed several of the commission's recommendations, which propose a series of reforms to help solve our nation's growing nuclear waste challenge. Witnesses included: Former Congressman Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft, co-chairmen of the commission; and representatives from: L. Barrett Consulting; NorthWorks, Inc.; Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch & Lawrence; Union for Concerned Scientists; Citizens Against Government Waste; and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

    The co-chairmen of the commission, testified on the commission's findings over the past two years. Hamilton and Scowcroft delivered a 27-page joint statement and warned of the dire situation facing nation's nuclear waste program and stressed the need for urgent action, explaining, "What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues." In their statement, the two said:

"America's nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain is but the latest indicator of a policy that has been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has simply not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the nation's most hazardous radioactive materials. The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay.

 

"What we have found is that our nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly. It will be even more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to state – federal relations and public confidence in the federal government's competence, and damaging to America's standing in the world as a source of nuclear expertise and as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non‐proliferation, and security.

 

"This failure is also costly to utility ratepayers who continue to pay for a nuclear waste management solution that has yet to be delivered, to communities that have become unwilling hosts of long-term waste storage facilities, and to U.S. taxpayers who face billions in liabilities as a result of the failure to meet federal waste management commitments.

 

"This generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with finding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoid foreclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choices—about the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy resource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cycle—based on emerging technologies and developments and their own best interests.

 

"The national interest demands that our nuclear waste program be fixed. Complacency with a failed nuclear waste management system is not an option. With a 65,000 metric ton inventory of spent nuclear fuel spread across the country and growing at over 2000 metric tons per year, the status quo is not acceptable. The need for a new strategy is urgent."

    The key recommendation of the BRC is: a new, "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities." The recommendations indicates that: "Experience in the United States and in other nations suggests that any attempt to force a top-down, federally mandated solution over the objections of a state or community -- far from being more efficient -- will take longer, cost more, and have lower odds of ultimate success. By contrast, the approach we recommend is explicitly adaptive, staged, and consent-based. Based on a review of successful siting processes in the United States and abroad -- including most notably the siting of a disposal facility for transuranic radioactive waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, and recent positive outcomes in Spain, Finland and Sweden -- we believe this type of approach can provide the flexibility and sustain the public trust and confidence needed to see controversial facilities through to completion."

 

    In an opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) said he agreed with many of the Commission's recommendations, however, he went beyond the BRC recommendations and said, "I agree that Yucca Mountain - as designated by law - remains fixed on the table as a solution to the nuclear waste debate. In the wake of the Administration's interference with the independent technical evaluation of the repository at Yucca Mountain, the resulting Blue Ribbon Commission found what many of us have long been saying about the failed management of nuclear waste. The Commission's report correctly advises control of the Nuclear Waste Fund be removed from the purse strings of political ideologues and entrusted to "a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program" set forth under law."

 

    The BRC did not recommend Yucca Mountain as a solution, and in fact said, ". . .we have not evaluated Yucca Mountain or any other location as a potential site for the storage or disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, nor have we taken a position on the Administration's request to withdraw the license application. We simply note that regardless what happens with Yucca Mountain, the U.S. inventory of spent nuclear fuel will soon exceed the amount that can be legally emplaced at this site until a second repository is in operation. So under current law, the United States will need to find a new disposal site even if Yucca Mountain goes forward. . ."

 

    Rep. Shimkus said, "Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied geological repository for spent nuclear fuel. There are possibly no other 230 square miles in the world that have been examined and reexamined more by America's greatest scientific minds than Yucca Mountain. Three decades of study, 15 billion dollars, and, quite frankly, common sense, support the current requirement to secure high-level nuclear waste on federal property, under a mountain, in a desert." Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said, "Over the past three years, we have watched as the Obama Administration brazenly dismantled the Yucca Mountain program, with no legal, technical, or safety basis for doing so. These actions present serious questions about this Administration's respect for taxpayers, for nuclear power consumers who have paid in billions for this project, and for the public at large. We must keep our promise to the public to ensure safe disposal of the nation's nuclear waste, and not keep putting it off."

    The Commission's proposal for a "consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities" was met with some opposition from Republican members and witnesses who argued we must follow the law and build Yucca Mountain. Congress decided Yucca Mountain was the best available option for our nation's nuclear waste over 25 years ago. Committee members pointed out that decades of work and billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars were poured into the project, only to have it shuttered by the Obama administration. Given the urgency of our nation's nuclear crisis, we do not have the time or the money to start over.

    In response to the Republican position, full Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA) said in an opening statement, "Twenty-five years after the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is clear that this top-down, federally mandated approach has not worked. The Department of Energy has terminated its Yucca Mountain activities. Last year – and again this year – Congress has provided no funding for Yucca Mountain. Even the biggest advocates for Yucca Mountain in the Republican House have not acted to provide any funding. . . The Blue Ribbon Commission spent nearly two years conducting this review and its recommendations are timely. The Commission recommendations deserve our serious consideration. They raise a number of important policy questions, such as whether a new organization should be established to address the nuclear waste problem, how the Nuclear Waste Fund should be used, and whether one or more centralized storage facilities should be developed in addition to one or more geologic repositories. Answering these questions requires an open mind and a willingness to move past a narrow obsession with Yucca Mountain.

    The Senate Energy & Natural Resources (ENR) Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), with Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is conducting a hearing on the report today (February 2). The witnesses simply include the two co-chairmen Hamilton and Scowcroft who are expected to deliver their same joint statement.

    Access the House Republican E&C hearing website for background, opening statements and witness testimony (click here). Access the Democrats E&C hearing website for opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access the Senate ENR hearing website for testimony and webcast (click here).  [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

House & Senate Prepare To Hear Nuclear Waste Issues

Jan 26: Following the release of the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) which details comprehensive recommendations for creating a safe, longterm solution for managing and disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high‐level radioactive waste [See WIMS 1/26/12], House and Senate Committees announced plans to hold hearings on the recommendations.

 

    The United States currently has more than 65,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel stored at about 75 operating and shutdown reactor sites around the country. More than 2,000 tons are being produced each year. The DOE also is storing an additional 2,500 tons of spent fuel and large volumes of high‐level nuclear waste, mostly from past weapons programs, at a handful of government‐owned sites.

 

    Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) welcomed the final report. They said they were "disappointed that President Obama prohibited the commission from reviewing the merits of Yucca Mountain." They indicated that they agree with several of the commission's recommendations and believe the report's findings only underscore the urgent need to move forward with development of the Yucca program. The Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, February 1, 2012, at 9:30 AM.

 

    The two issued a joint statement saying, "In the wake of the Obama administration's mismanagement of Yucca Mountain, we agree with the commission that a new organizational structure must be put into place to manage our country's nuclear waste. The current administration has proved unwilling to carry out the law; it's time to think about a new single-purpose entity to put our country's nuclear future back on track. As recommended in the report, it is crucial this authority have full access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Recent House efforts to fund Yucca Mountain have been repeatedly thwarted by Harry Reid's Democratic Senate and the White House. We must decouple these funds from political whims imposed by the budget cycle to ensure the billions of dollars taxpayers and ratepayers have poured into Yucca Mountain will not be squandered.

 

    "The commission underscored the need for prompt action on a long-term storage disposal facility, and we believe Yucca Mountain remains the most shovel-ready, thoroughly studied option. While we develop this repository, we agree that we must also prepare for the large-scale transport of nuclear waste. As our nation's nuclear waste increases, so does the need for a long-term nuclear waste solution. We will continue to examine the commission's findings as we work to ensure the safety of our nuclear future."

 

   The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX), issued a statement saying, "I welcome the release of the report and look forward to its thoughtful review by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Nuclear energy will continue to be an integral piece of America's energy portfolio, and identifying a workable path forward to manage nuclear waste, including new technology pathways, deserves consideration. I thank the Blue Ribbon Commission panel for its hard work, particularly the leadership of its Co-Chairmen, General Scowcroft and former Congressman Hamilton. 

    "President Obama threw the future of U.S. nuclear waste management into disarray when he unilaterally decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository. While by law Yucca Mountain continues to be the only designated permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste, sensible steps to make it easier for future generations to manage nuclear waste warrant examination. The BRC's Report is a productive contribution to that ongoing discussion. "In the meantime, American taxpayers deserve to see the results of their $15 billion investment in Yucca Mountain, including the results of the comprehensive scientific review, which have yet to be released.  At a time when the country desperately needs a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy strategy – including expanded use of nuclear energy – the lack of a permanent storage solution continues to burden existing nuclear plants and increase liability to the American taxpayer. I look forward to an informative hearing in the coming weeks to review the Commission's report."

    Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) announced the Committee will hold a hearing on the Commission's report on Thursday, February 2, with witnesses including Co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Lt. General Brent Scowcraft, USAF. Ranking Member Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), released a statement saying, "I've been working with Sens. Feinstein, Alexander and Bingaman to find a plan to deal with our nation's spent nuclear fuel. We have a lot of issues to address -- not just the need for a long-term repository, but also transportation safety issues, the federal government's contractual liability and the need to consolidate and prioritize the existing temporary storage facilities -- and I'll be looking to the commission for guidance as we consider possible legislative action.

 

    "While the commission's report doesn't break a lot of new ground, it does offer some solid recommendations for improving U.S. policy, especially the call for the creation of a new organization that's protected from political influence or annual funding bills to handle nuclear waste disposal. I think that's an idea that's overdue, which is why I cosponsored Sen. Voinovich's Fed-Corp proposal.

 

    In its report, the BRC indicated, ". . .the Obama Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the latest indicator of a nuclear waste management policy that has been troubled for decades and has now reached an impasse. Allowing that impasse to continue is not an option. . .The Commission noted that it was specifically not tasked with rendering any opinion on the suitability of Yucca Mountain, proposing any specific site for a waste management facility, or offering any opinion on the role of nuclear power in the nation's energy supply mix. . . the urgent need to change and improve our strategy for managing the high‐level wastes and spent fuel that already exist and will continue to accumulate so long as nuclear reactors operate in this country."

 

    The Commission said what it has endeavored to do is "recommend a sound waste management approach that can lead to the resolution of the current impasse, and can and should be applied regardless of what site or sites are ultimately chosen to serve as the permanent disposal facility for America's spent nuclear fuel and other high‐level nuclear wastes."

 

    Access a release from Reps. Upton and Shimkus (click here). Access a release from Rep. Hall (click here). Access a release from Sen. Murkowski (click here). Access a release from BRC (click here). Access the complete 180-page report (click here). Access the BRC website for complete background information (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Different Views On What NRC Yucca Mountain Vote Means

Sep 9: House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) issued a response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) final vote on the Atomic Safety Licensing Board's (ASLB) ruling that Department of Energy may not withdraw its application for the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. The House leaders said, "The commission announced a tie vote of 2-2, therefore the ASLB's legal decision is not overturned and the DOE's motion to withdraw the application is not granted." However, the tie vote effectively ends the review of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, consistent with the strategy of the Obama Administration and the wishes of the Senate Majority Leader.

 

    According to the NRC staff requirements memorandum (SRM) regarding the matter, SECY-10-0102 – U.S. Department of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository), Review of LBP-10-11, Docket No. 63-001-HLW, "The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order on the question whether the Commission should review, and reverse or uphold, the Construction Authorization Board's decision denying the Department of Energy's motion to withdraw its construction authorization application. The Memorandum and Order states that the Commission was evenly divided on whether to take the affirmative action of overturning or upholding the Board's decision and directs the Board to complete all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including disposal of all matters pending before it, by the end of the fiscal year. Commissioner Apostolakis did not participate in this matter. (Subsequently, on September 9, 2011, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.)"

 

     The House members said, "While the application is still legally pending, the Commission instructed the Board to "complete all necessary and appropriate case management activities" and document the history of the adjudicatory proceeding by the end of the fiscal year. Upton and Shimkus indicated that effective October 1, this places the license application review in a state of suspended animation awaiting a funding decision by Congress and President Obama. They said, "Today's action means the Yucca Mountain license application remains alive. The full House of Representatives voted this summer 297-130 on a strong bipartisan basis to increase funding for both DOE and NRC to process the license application. We expect the Senate and the President to put politics aside and cooperate with the full House so that license review may proceed, ensuring the billions of taxpayer dollars and nearly three decades of research is not wasted. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is critical we get America's nuclear future back on track and move forward with Yucca Mountain."

 

    Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also issued a statement on the NRC action, which he said "directs the commission's licensing board [ASLB) to, by the end of this month, close and complete all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including disposal of all matters pending before it and comprehensively documenting the full history of the Yucca Mountain proceeding."

 

    Senator Reid said, "Today's decision by the NRC brings the Yucca Mountain saga closer to its final conclusion.  I am pleased that the commission is ready to wrap up all work on Yucca licensing by the end of this month. Congress has zeroed out funding for Yucca, the Administration has completely shut down the project, and there is a Blue Ribbon Commission [BRC] of venerable scientific, industry, environmental and policy experts working on a safer, more secure and realistic management strategy for nuclear waste.  Our nation is clearly prepared to move on and finally solve the nuclear waste problem. The Commission's long deliberation on this matter reflects the challenges our country faces in safely and securely managing nuclear waste without running roughshod over a single state or community. For 25 years, I have worked to stop the Yucca Mountain project. I look forward to using that experience to work with my colleagues in finally developing a plan to safely and securely manage nuclear waste in a way that protects Nevadans and all Americans from the most dangerous substance known to man."

 

    Christopher Guith, VP of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Energy Institute indicated in a blog post, "The rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise are greatly exaggerated. Now that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rightfully agreed the Department of Energy did not and does not have the authority to withdraw the application for Yucca mountain, it is clear the court system is the next stop on Yucca's long and expensive journey. While it is a further waste of taxpayer funds for DOE to defend its decision to ignore its legal obligation in court, I am confident that our judicial system will ultimately require DOE to actually follow the law.  I am also certain that the NRC's decision to close out work on the license application will be challenged in court and in Congress. After America's taxpayers and ratepayers have invested more than $20 billion in this project, it's naive and premature to conclude Yucca Mountain is dead."

 

    Access the release from Reps. Upton and Shimkus (click here). Access the NRC SRM (click here). Access the CLI-11-07 Memorandum and Order (click here). Access the release from Senator Reid (click here). Access the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) for related information (click here). Access the Chamber blog post (click here). [#Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

U.S. "Nuclear Waste Management Program Is At An Impasse"

Jul 29: The President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) released the draft full commission report for public comment. The draft report represents the work and recommendations BRC to date. BRC said, "It is important to note that we expect this document to continue to change and take form as we receive additional comments." The public comment period will be open through October 31, 2011. On May 13, the BRC held a day-long meeting in Washington, DC, and released its draft recommendations from subcommittees on: Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology; Disposal of Nuclear Waste; and Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste [See WIMS 5/16/11].

 

    The draft recommendations respond to questions presented to the three subcommittees. The BRC was co-chaired by: Lee Hamilton, former Democratic U.S. Representative from Indiana from January 1965-January 1999; and, Brent Scowcroft, a Republican who served as the National Security Advisor to both Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Thirteen additional members included former Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE); and Pete Domenici (R-NM) and long-time chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee; John Rowe, CEO of Exelon Corporation; MIT Physics Professor Ernie Moniz and others.

 

    According to the BRC final draft report, "America's nuclear waste management program is at an impasse. The Obama Administration's decision to halt work on a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is but the latest indicator of a policy that has

been troubled for decades and has now all but completely broken down. The approach laid out under the 1987 Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) -- which tied the entire U.S. high-level waste management program to the fate of the Yucca Mountain site -- has not worked to produce a timely solution for dealing with the nation's most hazardous radioactive materials. The United States has traveled nearly 25 years down the current path only to come to a point where continuing to rely on the same approach seems destined to bring further controversy, litigation, and protracted delay.

 

    "The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (the Commission) was chartered to recommend a new strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. We approached this task from different perspectives but with a shared sense of urgency. Put simply, this nation's failure to come to grips with the nuclear waste issue has already proved damaging and costly and it will be more damaging and more costly the longer it continues: damaging to prospects for maintaining a potentially important energy supply option for the future, damaging to state–federal relations and public confidence in the federal government's competence, and damaging to America's standing in the world -- not only as a source of nuclear technology and policy expertise but as a leader on global issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security. Continued stalemate is also costly -- to utility ratepayers, to communities that have become unwilling hosts of long-term nuclear waste storage facilities, and to U.S. taxpayers who face mounting liabilities, already running into billions of dollars, as a result of the failure by both the executive and legislative branches to meet federal waste management commitments.

 

    A new strategy is needed, not just to address these damages and costs but because this generation has a fundamental ethical obligation to avoid burdening future generations with the entire task of finding a safe permanent solution for managing hazardous nuclear materials they had no part in creating. At the same time, we owe it to future generations to avoid foreclosing options wherever possible so that they can make choices -- about the use of nuclear energy as a low-carbon energy resource and about the management of the nuclear fuel cycle—based on emerging technologies and developments and their own best interests.

 

    "Almost exactly one year after the Commission was chartered and less than five months before our initial draft report was due, an unforeseen event gave new urgency to our charge and brought the problem of nuclear waste into the public eye as never before. A devastating earthquake off the northeastern coast of Japan and the unprecedented tsunami that followed set off a chain of problems at the Fukushima Daichii nuclear power station that eventually led to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. In the

weeks of intense media coverage that followed, many Americans became newly aware of the presence of tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel at more than 70 nuclear power plant sites around this country -- and of the fact that the United States currently has no physical capacity to do anything with this spent fuel other than to continue to leave it at the sites where it was first generated.

 

    "The strategy we recommend in this draft report has seven key elements:

1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.
4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated interim storage facilities.
6. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development.
7. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, nonproliferation, and security concerns.

    The elements of this strategy will not be new to those who have followed the U.S. nuclear waste program over the years. All of them are necessary to establish a truly integrated national nuclear waste management system, to create the institutional leadership and wherewithal to get the job done, and to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of technology developments and international responses to evolving nuclear safety, non-proliferation, and security concerns. . .

 

    "Overall, we are confident that our waste management recommendations can be implemented using revenue streams already dedicated for this purpose (i.e., the Nuclear Waste Fund and fee). Other Commission recommendations -- particularly those concerning nuclear technology programs and international policies -- are broadly consistent with the program plans of the relevant agencies. A second overarching point concerns timing and implementation. All of our recommendations are interconnected and will take time to implement fully, particularly since many elements of the strategy we propose require legislative action to amend the NWPA and other relevant laws . . ."

 

    Acting Department of Energy (DOE) Press Secretary Damien LaVera issued a brief comment on the BRC "Interim Recommendations" saying, "The Obama Administration continues to believe that nuclear energy has an important role to play as America moves to a clean energy future. As part of our commitment to restarting the American nuclear industry and creating thousands of new jobs and export opportunities in the process, we are committed to finding a sustainable approach to assuring safe, secure long-term disposal of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Secretary Chu appreciates the hard work done by the members of the Blue Ribbon Commission, and thanks them for a very thoughtful report. The interim report issued today is a strong step toward finding a workable solution to the challenges of the back end of the fuel cycle."

   

    The Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) senior vice president for governmental affairs, Alex Flint issued a statement on the report saying in part, "The Blue Ribbon Commission has rightly recognized that the national nuclear waste management system must be truly integrated and that the United States should remain at the forefront of technology developments and international efforts to responsibly manage nuclear materials. A number of recommendations in the report strike the nuclear energy industry as sensible, desirable and, given time, achievable. The industry is particularly gratified to see the recommendations calling for the establishment of one or more consolidated interim storage facilities for used nuclear fuel; development of a permanent underground repository for commercial used fuel and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs; creation of a new management organization that will assume the U.S. Department of Energy's role in managing this material; and legislation providing full access to nuclear waste fee revenues and the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. These should be among the nation's top energy policy priorities.The industry concurs with the Blue Ribbon Commission's assertion that the availability of consolidated interim storage will provide 'valuable flexibility' in the nuclear waste management system. . . the nuclear energy industry continues to believe that . . . review of the Department of Energy's license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository should continue."

 

    Access the complete 192-page final draft report (click here). Access the BRC website for additional draft reports, background and an online commenting form (click here). Access the DOE statement (click here). Access the NEI statement (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS

"Bombshell Testimony" From Ex-DOE Employee On Yucca Mountain

Jun 8: Calling it "bombshell testimony," the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans issued a release saying that during last week's Environment and the Economy Subcommittee hearing, Chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), on "The Department of Energy's Role in Managing Civilian Radioactive Waste," [See WIMS 6/1/11] "witnesses revealed that Energy Secretary Steven Chu simply ignored the technical components of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository when withdrawing the project's license application."

 

    According to the release, Christopher Kouts, a former 25-year DOE employee who served as acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and was the point person for the Yucca project, testified that "Secretary Chu ignored technical experts when withdrawing the repository's application. This nuclear insider said DOE's decision to shut down Yucca Mountain was disturbing given the scientific and technical consensus that the site would meet stringent safety regulations." Kouts

retired in early 2010, after 35 years of Federal Service. House Republicans indicated that Kouts' testimony comes on the heels of a Government Accountability Office report [See WIMS 5/11/11] that found "social and political opposition to a permanent repository, not technical issues, is the key obstacle." (See link below).

 

    In his written testimony, Kouts said, "My testimony should be viewed from the perspective of an individual who lived through the experiences of the program [i.e. the Yucca Mountain Project], during virtually its entire existence, and observed how the program and its surrounding policy environment evolved over many years." He said any new process to find an alternative nuclear waste disposal site would experience even more problems than the Yucca Mountain process, primarily because of the Internet and instant communications and the 24/7 news cycle. He also said the Yucca Mountain legal opposition has also established a model of delay that will be repeated.

 

    In conclusion he said, "Because the development of Yucca Mountain has been such a contentious and protracted process, it is being suggested that only consensual siting of these facilities should be pursued. I would submit to the Subcommittee that the U.S. and international experience in this area proves otherwise. In my discussions over the years with the Directors of repository programs abroad, they have consistently expressed their concerns that, due to the very long timeframes repository programs take to develop, any political consensus at the beginning can evaporate with one election, just as it has in the U.S. with Yucca Mountain. At the end of the day, implementing a repository program requires steady, consistent, national leadership.

 

    "In closing, beside its questioned legality, the Administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain Project is disturbing because Yucca Mountain has not failed any technical or regulatory test. The site has not failed in the NRC licensing process. The thousands of scientists and engineers and others that worked on the project over the years believe, as I believe, that the site would meet the stringent regulations of the EPA and the NRC and assure that these materials would not adversely impact future generations and the environment. Given the substantial investment this Nation has made in the site and in the policy that has been supported by every prior Administration since 1982, I believe the Nation deserves a final and definitive answer regarding Yucca Mountain from the NRC licensing process."

 

    On May 13, the President's Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future held a day-long meeting in Washington, DC, and released its draft recommendations from subcommittees on: Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology; Disposal of Nuclear Waste; and Transportation and Storage of Nuclear Waste. The draft recommendations indicate in part that, "The United States should proceed expeditiously to develop one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste. Permanent disposal is needed under all reasonably foreseeable scenarios. Geologic disposal in a mined repository is the most promising and technically accepted option available for safely isolating high-level nuclear wastes for very long periods of time." [See WIMS 5/16/11].

 

    The BRC recently released the draft Transportation and Storage Subcommittee report and the draft Disposal Subcommittee report for public comment. The Commission notes that, "These draft reports of the subcommittees represents the work and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) to date. It is important to note that we expect these documents to continue to change and take form as they are merged to create the draft report of the full Commission, and ultimately the final report. The BRC has taken the past year to hear official testimony and public comment, and will continue to do so as these reports are released. The Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee will be releasing its draft shortly."

 

    According to the BRC draft reports, "A draft of the full Commission's main report will be released by July 29, 2011 in accordance with the schedule set out in our charter. To be considered as the Commission develops the first public draft of its main report, comments on this Subcommittee report must be received by July 1, 2011. All comments will be made publicly available on the Commission website. Any comments received after July 1st will be considered as the Commission prepares its final report, which is due to the Secretary of Energy by January 29, 2012."

 

    Access the House Committee Republican release with video clips of the Kouts testimony (click here). Access the Kouts written testimony (click here). Access the Republican hearing website for background, statements and testimony (click here). Access the Democrat's hearing website for background, statements, testimony and a webcast of the complete hearing (click here). Access the GAO report (click here). Access the BRC website for the latest reports and information (click here). Access links to the draft BRC reports, related information and a commenting link (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS