DC appeals court sets date in nuclear dump lawsuit
LAS VEGAS -- A Washington, D.C., appeals court plans oral arguments March 22 in a lawsuit aimed at keeping plans on track to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada.
South Carolina, Washington state, Aiken County, S.C., and three Washington state business owners claim the Obama administration overstepped its authority in cutting funding for the Yucca Mountain project.
Plaintiffs argue the shutdown leaves states dealing with tons of radioactive material that should be buried in the proposed repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The Energy Department argues the administration has the right to change federal nuclear waste policy.
Bacteria and hard water can give heavy metals a hard time. Scientists coax underground microbes to turn calcium-rich water and urea into a stony underground trap for contaminants.
The Cold War ended long ago, but its radioactive legacy still lingers in the water and soil of the western United States. Between 1950 and 1990, nuclear weapons materials production and processing at several federal facilities generated billions of gallons of water contaminated with radioactive byproducts.
Panel overlooked Texans' welfare in nuclear-waste ruling The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission put the interests of Waste Control Specialists ahead of residents' welfare when it approved rules that would allow 36 states to send their hazardous waste to a Texas disposal facility, writes the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News. Decisions regarding the proper disposal of nuclear waste should "include a transparent process" in which profit-making is not the motivating factor, the board adds. The Dallas Morning News
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing rule revisions that would allow nuclear facilities to store high-level waste and used fuel for more than 120 years. "This analysis will go well beyond the current analysis that supports at least 60 years of post-licensed life storage with eventual disposal in a deep geologic repository," the NRC said. "In terms of the disposal of [used] fuel and high-level waste, the revisions to the Waste Confidence Decision reflect the reality that a repository for the material remains unavailable," Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC. Brattleboro Reformer (Vt.)
Fueling America’s nuclear renaissance by reprocessing nuclear fuel
By Dr. Bernard L. Weinstein - 12/21/10 11:43 AM ET
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama did an about-face and started voicing support for a revival of America’s nuclear power industry. To that end, he proposed a sizeable increase in federal loan guarantees to stimulate the construction of new commercial reactors. Then a few weeks ago, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Steven Chu stated that Congress should include nuclear power as part of any renewable energy mandates.
But at the same time, the president continues to insist that Yucca Mountain in Nevada — the intended repository for spent nuclear fuel — be abandoned as a disposal site even before it opens. Should this happen, some 60,000 metric tons of spent fuel will remain in temporary on-site storage at 65 plants, and the power industry’s interest in building new nuclear plants could quickly evaporate.
Since 1982, utilities have paid almost $17 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund, an account administered by the DOE that continues to grow by $800 million annually, to cover the costs of permanent disposal. Even after spending $10 billion at Yucca Mountain, with accumulated interest the fund balance is currently around $20 billion. Not surprisingly, 16 utilities, along with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, have sued the DOE to halt further collection of fees, arguing that the country no longer has a disposal plan after ruling out Yucca Mountain.
The Obama administration now says it supports the temporary storage of spent fuel at power plants while technology paves the way for an alternative solution. In fact, that technology already exists — nuclear fuel reprocessing. Given the uncertainty over the future of Yucca Mountain, and the potential explosion of litigation that will only increase taxpayer exposure, why not rethink the decades-old ban on this technology? The ban was first imposed by President Jimmy Carter in the mid-1970s on the grounds it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But that hasn’t stopped France, Britain, Russia, China and South Korea from pursuing fuel reprocessing; and no plutonium has ever been diverted from recycling facilities for weapons production in these countries.
With reprocessing, a technology that was developed in the United States, valuable plutonium and uranium in spent fuel are removed and then chemically processed into a mixed-oxide fuel that can be used again in a reactor to generate additional electricity. Up to 95 percent of the spent fuel volume can be reprocessed, leaving only about 5 percent to decay in a few centuries. Importantly, reducing the volume of spent fuel through reprocessing would simplify the challenge of storage and disposal. What’s more, squeezing more energy out of spent fuel would be beneficial both to the nation’s economy and the environment. By using reprocessed fuel, we generate more electricity for American homes and businesses while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
One reprocessing facility is already being constructed in South Carolina to recycle surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons into a mixed-oxide fuel for use in nuclear power plants. Some of the funds that have accumulated in the Nuclear Waste Fund could be used to build a similar plant for recycling used fuel from commercial nuclear facilities.
About a year ago the DOE appointed a blue ribbon commission to evaluate policy options for a safe, long-term solution to nuclear waste disposal. The 15-member Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, co-chaired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and including scientists, industry representatives, and heads of environmental research organizations, will issue its final report by January 2012.
Recycling of spent nuclear fuel should be at the top of the Commission’s agenda. Reprocessing, along with centralized interim storage, makes a lot more sense than banking used fuel at nuclear plants indefinitely. At the same time, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to advance America’s nuclear renaissance, a task made more difficult by the ongoing uncertainty regarding the final disposition of spent fuel.
Dr. Weinstein is associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Between 1985 and 1995, he was with the speakers’ bureau of the Nuclear Energy Institute. His email address is bweinstein@smu.edu
Lifting the stay on reprocessing will cut amount of nuclear waste The U.S. could reduce the amount of nuclear waste by lifting the decades-old moratorium on fuel reprocessing, writes Bernard L. Weinstein, associate director with the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Reprocessing used fuel, along with centralized storage, would be more practical than keeping tons of nuclear waste at different facilities indefinitely, Weinstein adds. The Hill/Congress blog
End to nuclear-waste fee is sought by Arizona official Arizona Corporation Commissioner Bob Stump urged Energy Secretary Steven Chu to end a fee that would help pay for the development of a permanent nuclear-waste repository. The fee now serves no purpose because the government terminated the Yucca Mountain project, Stump added. "Why are Arizonans and our nation's ratepayers, who are working to recover from one of the harshest recessions in American history, being forced to continue to pay this fee, with no benefit in sight," he wrote in a letter to Chu. The Arizona Republic (Phoenix)
WASHINGTON -- Nevada Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval on Friday wrapped up three days of meetings with federal leaders, with the most notable episode of the week taking place during an audience with President Barack Obama.
While Obama was taking questions Thursday during a meeting with 23 new governors in the official White House guest house, incoming South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley challenged him on Yucca Mountain.
Haley, whose state is suing to revive the terminated project, asked whether Obama would reconsider his decision to shut down the proposed Nevada nuclear waste site.
"You might want to ask the Nevada governor about that," Obama quipped. At which point Sandoval jumped in. "I think I can answer that question for you, Mr. President," he piped up.
Like other elected Nevadans, Sandoval opposes the Yucca project. Obama turned to Haley and defended his decision before the new governors, saying his administration was looking for alternatives to the Nevada storage site.
"It was a fast exchange," Sandoval said afterward, but one that was welcomed by Nevada's new chief executive.
"It reaffirmed to me the president will not be supporting the long-term storage of nuclear waste in Nevada," Sandoval said. "I have the understanding the administration has not changed its position."
Beyond his comment on Yucca Mountain, Sandoval did not ask Obama questions. But he said it was clear that Nevada's concerns about the cost of Obama's signature health care reform was shared by others in the session that was held at Blair House.
Again, it was Haley who challenged Obama to repeal the health care legislation. He rejected the idea, but reportedly offered the possibility the states could opt out of some requirements under certain conditions.
During three days in Washington, Sandoval met with various Cabinet secretaries, Republican leaders in Congress and members of Nevada's delegation.
The newly elected Republican said the sessions were good first steps to establish relationships with federal leaders. He said Obama promised governors his administration would reciprocate.
"He said we can be very confident they will return our calls," Sandoval said.
In a meeting last month with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sandoval asked the Senate majority leader about chances the government could pick up $215 million of Nevada's costs to run Medicaid, the free health care program for the poor.
Nevada has been hit hard by the recession and major cuts are expected in Sandoval's budget, which he will present to the Legislature in 2011. The state will be hit with a 17 percent drop in tax revenues over the next two years, according to this week's projection by the state Economic Forum.
Sandoval also expressed concern to Reid about Nevada owing the government $105 million in interest charges over the next two years on loans that have enabled the state to pay unemployment benefits.
Sandoval said Friday that he did not get into detail on those issues in meetings this week, including one with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. But he said he is scheduling a follow-up with her chief of staff that will get into the numbers.
"They said there may be ways that they can assist Nevada," Sandoval said. "We haven't gotten into the specifics but that was the objective of my trip, to meet with the respective Cabinet secretaries and talk about Nevada issues and to be able to follow up from there."
Sandoval also planned a follow-up meeting Friday with the chief of staff to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood after meeting with the Cabinet member on Thursday. The topic was to be high-speed rail, one of the issues Obama discussed with new governors on Thursday.
Sandoval said he wanted the government's view of competing proposals to serve the Las Vegas-Southern California corridor with magnetic levitation trains or conventional high-speed rail before deciding which plan his administration will support.
"What I want to do .... is sit down and see what there is to offer," Sandoval said. "I want to try to understand what the respective position of the Department of Transportation is in regard to the two projects.
"I think it's important we have high-speed rail in the state of Nevada but I am not going to pick one project over the other," Sandoval said. "It's a fact finding mission .... in seeing exactly where the Department of Transportation is. I did not realize how big a priority it is for the administration, and there are a lot of resources available to the states that will be participating."
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed Congressman Bart Gordon’s bill to ensure robust research and development efforts in the United States nuclear industry.
“Nuclear power will need to remain a component of America’s energy portfolio, whether our goal is energy independence or responsible climate policy,” said Gordon, who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology. “This bill invests in research to develop nuclear power technologies that are more efficient, more cost effective and more secure.”
Gordon’s bill, the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 2010, promotes work on Small Modular Reactors, reactors that are significantly smaller and present much lower up-front costs than large traditional nuclear power plants. SMRs have the potential to increase the safety and reliability of nuclear generation while making it more cost effective for nuclear energy providers.
The bill also authorizes research into technologies to prolong the life of the United States' 104 existing commercial reactors, which currently provide 20 percent of the country's power and 70 percent of its emissions-free power.
This bill also devotes resources to addressing the safety issues associated with storage and disposal of nuclear waste. A new fuel cycle research program at the Department of Energy will take a comprehensive approach to safe waste management, including reprocessing technologies and advanced storage methods.
Gordon has been a leader on responsible nuclear waste disposal policy, opposing efforts to process other countries’ nuclear waste in Tennessee and passing the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act to limit imports of foreign waste.
The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act was based on broad bipartisan efforts from the Committee of Science and Technology.
“When I became the Committee’s chairman in 2007, I wanted it to become the committee of good ideas and consensus,” said Gordon. “This bill is just one of the legislative accomplishments we’ve achieved by working in that spirit.”
In the current congress, Gordon has championed legislative efforts from tornado research to oil spill cleanup technology to national cybersecurity. The House reauthorized Gordon's landmark bill the America COMPETES Act earlier this year to protect America’s economic competitiveness by investing in research and science, technology, engineering and math education.http://www.dnj.com/article/20101201/NEWS01/101201026/1002/House+Passes+Gordon%E2%80%99s+Nuclear+Energy+Bill
A broad review of current research on nuclear power economics has been published in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. The report concludes that nuclear power will continue to be a viable power source but that the current fuel cycle is not sustainable. Due to uncertainty about waste management, any projection of future costs must be built on basic assumptions that are not grounded in real data.
"The goal of this study was to determine what assumptions are key to reaching conclusions about the relative costs of technologies," says author Sarah Widder, now at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. She performed the analysis as a science policy intern in Washington D.C. sponsored by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers . "The increasing world demand for uranium and political considerations such as the fate of the Yucca mountain disposal site are two major elements that drive conclusions in one direction or another."
Reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel is an alternative to the "once-through" policy mandated by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. While it would minimize high-level radioactive waste and recover additional value from the fuel, the option is controversial because of the risk of weapon proliferation and the significant cost of fuel recovery.
Analyses supporting the once-through option assume a continuation in current waste management policies, although they rely on disposal at Yucca Mountain, which has now been deemed unsuitable by the current administration. Analyses supporting a closed fuel cycle, in which unused fuel is recovered and recycled, assume progress in developing new recovery technologies and an increase in uranium costs due to international competition for resources.
Recent revelations lend credence to allegations the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been stalling on announcing its Yucca Mountain decision for political purposes. Time for the NRC to announce its decision on whether the Obama administration can cancel the project unilaterally.
Related
IT'S confirmed. Four Nuclear Regulatory Commission members cast their votes months ago on the question of whether the Obama administration can unilaterally cancel the nation's deep geological nuclear-waste repository. But the votes have been kept secret apparently for political reasons.
Attribute the holdup to NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who seems to have done everything he can to game the process and keep the question about Yucca Mountain from a more credible proceeding in federal court.
Congress designated the site 100 miles from Las Vegas as the destination for the nation's commercial nuclear waste and high-level defense waste, such as that now at Hanford in Southeastern Washington.
The NRC's own licensing board in June ruled that, no indeed, the Obama administration cannot flout the will of Congress. The question before the NRC is whether to affirm or overturn that ruling — a decision needed before the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals will take up related litigation.
Washington state, South Carolina and others have sued.
The bizarre political maneuverings at the NRC have given the agency long renowned for its straight-shooting credibility a black eye. Though the vote remains secret, Jaczko has ordered repository scientists to stop a near-complete study. The agency's inspector general says he's looking into the matter at the behest of a former commissioner.
Four of the commissioners — a fifth recused himself — voted by Sept. 15, as they each confirmed in recent letters to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. Jaczko, who voted Aug. 26, said he withdrew his vote and revoted Oct. 29 — just days before his patron, former boss and fervent opponent of Yucca Mountain, Sen. Harry Reid, barely fended off a tough Nov. 2 challenge.
Speculation is rampant the NRC vote did not go Jaczko's way. We can't help but think that if it had, the public would have been notified by a breathless news release around Sept. 15. Heck, Reid could have touted it in his campaign brochures.
Enough stalling, Chairman Jaczko. Time to publish this opinion so this very serious national matter can be settled in a more credible venue.
MIDLAND, Texas — A commission overseeing low-level radioactive waste disposal in Texas voted Saturday to publish proposed rules that would guide the importation of nuclear waste from across the country for burial near the New Mexico line.
The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission voted 5-2 to publish the revised rules in the Texas Registry and allow for a 30-day comment period.
Bob Gregory, who voted against publishing the rules now, said he wanted a longer comment period and felt the commission was rushing.
"I am convinced that this is too much, too soon, too fast - if at all," Gregory said. "There are far too many questions remaining."
Commission Chairman Michael Ford disagreed, saying the panel has not moved too quickly and that the process has been thorough.
If the proposed rules are adopted, low-level radioactive waste from 36 other states will be dumped in a remote region of West Texas along with waste from Texas and Vermont, which make up the compact. Requests for importation would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments late last week whether Pacific Gas and Electric needed to conduct environmental analysis on the vulnerability of spent nuclear fuel casks stored at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plan. Attorneys for Mothers for Peace argued that such analysis was required and demanded access to security documents long deemed top secret to ensure that proper analysis has been conducted and that proper safeguards have been taken. In 2002, Pacific Gas & Electric was granted permission to be begin storing spent fuel rods that have been accumulating at Diablo Canyon—because no final repository for such nuclear wastes exists in the United States—in giant concrete cased steel lined caskets. Mothers for Peace has insisted that these storage tasks would be easy pickings to any terrorist with an airplane. PG&E officials have insisted the casks are built to withstand a direct hit by a plane. They’ve also argued against allowing anyone without high level government security clearance to examine whatever internal precautions they’ve taken for such terrorist eventualities. http://www.independent.com/news/2010/nov/11/debate-nuclear-fuel-cask-safety/
While the state Commission on Nuclear Projects huddled at the Clark County Government Center to continue its opposition of the Yucca Mountain Project, a few miles away on the Strip more than 2,000 nuclear industry leaders, scientists and researchers converged for a conference titled "Nuclear Progress!"
Despite their differences, both sides acknowledge that the nation's high-level radioactive waste eventually will need a permanent disposal site.
Where that place is, when it will be ready and in what form the waste will be are some of the questions that remain a couple months after Congress zeroed out funding for the project and President Barack Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission for America's Nuclear Future began charting a new path forward.
"My opinion as a nuclear engineer is that the findings of that commission will not be much different than previous commissions. We know what the options are," said Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, incoming chairwoman of the American Nuclear Society's Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division.
The best option, whether or not it is Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, or some other site in some other state, is deep, geologic disposal, she said.
Industry observers are looking at how the Obama administration plans to handle permanent nuclear-waste storage after it decided to abandon the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, set up by the administration, is heading discussions on future nuclear-waste policy. "It's certainly [going to be] a starting point for whatever happens," said Rod McCullum, director of the Nuclear Energy Institute's used-fuel program. Engineering News-Record
Brussels (AFP) Nov 3, 2010 Europe offered new plans Wednesday to lock away forever lethal radioactive waste, but the proposals attacking hopelessly inadequate disposal facilities drew a stinging rebuke from environmentalists. Half a century after atomic power was first produced in Britain, the European Union's nuclear energy-producing countries stand accused of future negligence without a single "deep geological disposal" site equipped to withstand up to an estimated one million years of decay.
As a result, the EU's executive arm tabled for the third time legislative proposals that would see states pushed to build the kind of facility deep in the earth's crust that it says scientists claim is the only way to protect nature's balance.
"We have to make sure that we have the highest safety standards in the world to protect our citizens, our water and the ground against nuclear contamination," said EU energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger, specifying that depths should be "a minimum of 300 metres (990 feet)."
The proposals immediately fell foul of anti-nuclear Greenpeace, whose "dirty energy" campaigner Jan Haverkamp termed them "sub-standard."
"It would take an engineering genius to safely bury white-hot, highly-dangerous nuclear waste deep underground for longer than mankind has been on the planet," he said.
"We fear a disposal facility could rupture high-level nuclear waste into the water table for hundreds of thousands of years."
Quite simply, added leading German Green EU lawmaker Rebecca Harms, the plans "do not address citizens' concerns given the danger posed by radioactive waste."
Oettinger acknowledged that two similar initiatives were previously batted away by states, but insisted this one "will not be blocked" under post-Lisbon treaty majority voting.
The commission is targeting adoption next year, and said states would then have four years to nail down a "concrete timetable" for constructing facilities, including "the financing schemes chosen."
The commission wants nuclear power plant operators "to put money aside for the financing of future disposals."
Producers would not be allowed to export nuclear waste to countries outside the EU for final disposal.
Current schemes offering so-called "interim storage" are given a lifespan of "maximal 50-100 years," the commission said, meaning waste "has to be retrieved and repackaged."
Spent fuel and radioactive waste "need continuous maintenance and oversight," it said.
As the material is typically near the surface, "there is in addition a risk of accidents, including airplane crashes, fires or earthquakes."
Each year, 7,000 cubic metres (247,000 cubic feet) of "high-level" waste that cannot be re-used are produced in the EU, and by 2020, a definitive solution must be found for 1.8 million cubic metres.
Once the rules are adopted, Brussels would be able to fine states that miss targets.
Finland plans to have the sort of repository the commission says science recommends operational in 2020, Sweden in 2023 and France in 2025, Oettinger's office said.
There are 143 nuclear power reactors in use across 14 of the EU's 27 states, with another two, Italy and Poland, planning to build their first.
Not every country would need to host a disposal site, should cross-border public support emerge for sharing.
Most European nations have settled on maintaining nuclear energy at the core of their power needs for coming generations, as oil threatens to run dry and new green technologies have yet to deliver their full potential.
The first nuclear plant to enter service in the EU was Calder Hall, which came on line in northwest England in 1956.
European Union Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger wants EU countries with nuclear power plants to submit plans to the regulator for how they will manage final storage of radioactive waste, Die Welt said.
The affected member states would have to detail their plans within four years after a draft law Oettinger will present tomorrow takes effect, the German newspaper said, citing an interview with the commissioner.
The law would also ban exports of nuclear waste to third party countries, Welt reported. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-02/eu-s-oettinger-wants-plans-for-nuclear-waste-storage-welt-says.html
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Congressman Jim Matheson and Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon urged state officials to maintain rules governing disposal of low-level radioactive waste.
Those laws protect against "hotter" nuclear waste coming to Utah.
The two spoke out following an announcement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying its rule making process regarding the disposal of blended radioactive waste is at least a year or two from completion.
Russia-Japan nuclear agreement moves forward The Russian government has cleared a nuclear-cooperation agreement with Japan. Under the deal, both countries will exchange expertise in nuclear security and work together in developing light-water reactors and storing nuclear waste. The pact is subject to the approval of the Russian parliament. RIA Novosti (Russia)
