Posted: 09 Jun 2012 03:15 PM PDT
Last Thursday, APR ran an article (
click here)
on actions that indicate a real future for a national spent fuel
repository; the House guaranteed $10 million for continuation of the
Yucca Mountain study by the NRC, and the DOE was rebuked by a Federal
Court of Appeals for continuing to charge utility companies money for
deposition in the spent fuel fund when there isn't any working plan to
develop a national repository.
Yesterday, the future of the spent
fuel repository - wherever it ends up, and whenever it gets built -
seemed to have another positive contribution when the D.C. Court of
Appeals threw out the NRC's "Waste Confidence Decision."
Click here to read the full Court of Appeals decision and considerations. (Thanks to Dan Yurman for the heads up on this.)
From the decision, we read the following introductory statement:
"This
is another in the growing line of cases involving the federal
government’s failure to establish a permanent repository for civilian
nuclear waste."One might think that the rest of the decision
would be extremely positive for the nuclear industry, given that
overall the indications of the industry have generally been that the
Federal Government needs to finally live up to its legal obligations to
research, build and operate a national HLW (High Level Waste)
repository. But that's not the case; this is where the NRC's intent -
and by "intent" I mean Chairman Jaczko's intent - to indicate that spent
fuel is safe as-is, where-is only seems to have gone so far as was
necessary to support the Chairman's assertion that there was no rush to
build a national waste repository, making it then possible to kill the
Yucca Mountain project. (At least, until Thursday.)
Below, the Nuclear Energy Institute's press release on this latest court decision.
--------------------
Nuclear Energy InstituteFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
202.739.8000For Release:June 8, 2012
NEI Responds to Court Ruling to Vacate NRC Waste Confidence DecisionWASHINGTON,
D.C.—The Nuclear Energy Institute’s Ellen C. Ginsberg, vice president
and general counsel, made the following remarks in reaction to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling today to vacate and remand
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s waste confidence decision.
“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.”
--------------------
What
essentially has happened here is that the D.C. Court has come to
believe that spent fuel in dry cask storage, and in spent fuel pools, is
dangerous. In fact, in the decision, the Court -- which has no
nuclear engineering experience whatsoever -- mentions the possibility of
spent fuel pool fires as one possible event that needs more
examination.
Quite recently, a piece that was presented at the
ANS Nuclear Cafe
totally demolished the concept of spent fuel pool fires at the
Fukushima Daiichi plant, in large part because of the age of the fuel
involved and the total coverage of many multiple layers of backup power
and equipment on site, near the site and transportable to the site.
(Structural integrity of the buildings was also another issue, clearly
addressed. This piece was produced in response to ridiculous and
hyperbolic claims being made in anti-nuclear circles about the situation
at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
Translating this notion to
conditions in the United States, and with that making the assumption
that the NRC (and thus probably no one else) has studied spent fuel
storage enough to say whether or not it is safe as-is, where-is, is
erroneous. In the ANS article, clear reference is made to a document
with the following title:
NUREG / CR-4982 "Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in support of Generic Safety Issue 82."
This
document, bearing a NUREG identifier, is clearly a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission document. This document dates from mid-1987. This is by no
means the only document ever produced on the subject. Even the simplest
examination of the document, namely its title and publication date
indicates that the NRC has been considering spent fuel conditions at
existing plants for twenty-five years at least, and has considered
worst-case scenarios (even though their likelihood is negligible in the
case of spent fuel storage in the U.S.) There is much more work on the
subject that can be found, but the point is that the NRC did in fact
have good ground to stand on in saying that spent fuel is safe where it
is now, as it is now.
The problem is that we will still
eventually run out of room for it - and the utilities will still
probably be paying the DOE whether a national facility is built rapidly
or slowly.
Chairman Jaczko, then, was probably completely correct
in his various statements that spent fuel can reside where it is for
quite a few more years yet; it appears as if the Court thinks that this
was an uninformed and all too convenient assumption. What the Court is
not aware of, apparently, is decades of work on spent fuel safety and
what the real situation concerning spent fuel at varied U.S. plants
really is. With luck, this will all be reasserted as the NRC works to
reissue the Waste Confidence Rule.
6:15 PM Eastern 6/9/2012
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW