The NRC licensing process is expected to be:
- Once the License application is received from
DOE, the NRC staff will do an "acceptance review" to
determine if all required information is included. This
is scheduled to take 90 days. If the required information
is not all there, staff will request the DOE to provide
what is needed. Once all information is there, the
application can be docketed and the three-year licensing
clock begins.
- Then the NRC staff begins its substantive review
under applicable regulations and review guidance
leading to staff determination of whether there is
"reasonable expectation" that the repository will
meet applicable safety standards of the NRC and
EPA. The findings become the "Safety Evaluation
Report."
- In addition, NRC staff will review DOE's Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to determine
to what extent it can be adopted by NRC and/or
if supplements or revisions are required. If the FEIS
is not made adoptable by DOE then the NRC staff
must prepare an EIS appropriate to the final
decision for construction authorization.
- A public hearing will be held and presided
over by the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board (ASLB), an independent
entity within the NRC. The hearing will
cover disputed issues or contentions of
DOE's license application deemed admissible by
NRC. The State of Nevada and other parties granted
permission to be involved may cross-examine witnesses
who are proponents of the application and
bring in expert witnesses to testify. After conclusion
of the hearing, the Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board’s three-member panel will come to a decision
on whether to grant the license. The ASLB’s decision can be appealed, in which case the five Commissioners
of the NRC will have the final say.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public involvement in the Yucca Mountain licensing
process is limited. In the pre-licensing stage,
the public was invited to comment on NRC’s proposed
licensing criteria for the Yucca Mountain repository.
However, the full licensing-stage involves
little public participation.
Members of the public can participate in what is
called a ‘limited appearance’ at the public hearing
given by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
During the ‘limited appearance,’ members
of the Board will listen to statements from
any public citizen who wishes to participate.
However, neither the ASLB nor the
NRC are required to take those comments
into account while making the license decision.
Members of the public are also allowed to attend
and observe the hearing, which will take place over a
period of months, perhaps in more than one location.
No locations have currently been set, but the
NRC says it will make transcripts of the hearing
available to the public. The NRC will also consider whether to broadcast the hearing
via closed circuit TV to several
locations around the state, as
well as allowing citizens to participate
in limited appearance via
satellite. Although the hearing is
not likely to take place before
2006, NRC staff says it could
make location and broadcast decisions
as early as mid-2003.
In the meantime, if concerned citizens have any
questions about the licensing process, they can contact
Nuclear Regulatory Commission On-Site Representatives
at their Las Vegas office: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, High-Level Waste On-site
Representatives Office, P.O. Box 371048, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 89137-1048, telephone: (702) 794–
5046. Comments can also be submitted online at
www.nrc.gov.
CURRENT STATUS
According to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve,
the NRC is currently working with DOE to provide
guidance on developing the license application. Although
DOE is technically required by a 1982 nuclear
waste law to submit their application within 90
days of Congressional approval of the repository (by
mid-October 2002), the earliest DOE says they will
be ready is December 2004.
After that, the NRC has three years (with a possible
one-year extension) to review the construction
authorization application before rendering a decision
on whether to grant DOE the license. Historically,
the NRC has never denied a license to any major nuclear
power entity such as nuclear utilities and independent
spent fuel storage sites.
CASK TESTING
The NRC is also responsible for
the safety of casks to be used to
transport nuclear waste across the
country. So far, full-scale testing of
the casks has yet to be completed;
only smaller cask models and computer
simulations have been used. However, the
NRC currently plans a limited full-scale cask testing
process in 2004. The details of the plan are not yet
known.
|
Technical Issues |
To help organize its review of the Yucca Mountain
license application, the staff of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has established
nine key technical issues
concerning the performance of the
repository.
These topics are the most important
to understanding the longterm
capability of a repository at Yucca Mountain to
protect public health, safety and the environment.
- Unsaturated and saturated zone flow
under isothermal conditions: How does
water move above and below a potential repository
at Yucca Mountain?
- Thermal effects on flow: How does the
heat generated by nuclear waste affect the movement
of water in the immediate area of the potential
repository?
- Container life and source term: How
long do we expect the containers and waste
forms to last? What will happen to the waste as
the containers and waste forms wear away?
- Evolution of the near field environment:
How do water and heat affect the chemical
environment of the containers, waste forms,
and the immediate area around the repository?
- Radionuclide transport: How do radioactive
elements released from degraded waste
move away from the repository?
- Repository design and thermal mechanical
effects: How do engineering design,
construction, and operation of a repository affect
short- and long-term repository safety?
- Structural deformation and
seismicity: How do geologic features and
events, such as fractures and earthquakes, affect
repository safety?
- Igneous activity: How likely is it that volcanic
eruptions or igneous intrusions will disrupt
the repository, and what would be the potential
consequences to people and the environment?
- Total system performance assessment
and integration: How will the entire
system of engineered and natural barriers work
together to retain waste so that the proposed repository
at Yucca Mountain will comply with
safety and environmental standards?
(Source: www.wpnwpo.com)
DOE to Start Waste Transportation Planning
The Department of Energy is accelerating nuclear
waste transportation plans in an attempt to meet
the 2010 deadline set for the opening of the Yucca
Mountain repository. Transportation officials are
currently working on transportation route selection,
and Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to unveil
a “National Transportation Plan” in 2003.
Yucca Mountain Project Chief Margaret Chu told
the National Academy of Sciences in late July that
the Department of Energy (DOE) has an “extremely
tight” schedule and plans to make up time along the
way. She said over the next
eight years the Department
will identify the exact routes
to be used, prepare state and
local emergency response
teams, and construct a $900
million rail line to Yucca
Mountain despite Nevada’s objections.
The State, however, insists that DOE follow the
rules throughout the transportation planning process.
In a statement issued by the Nuclear Waste Project
Office, State officials argue that DOE must follow
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) which requires federal agencies to
prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that
evaluate alternatives before decisions are made.
NEPA also calls for public involvement in the federal
decision making process.
The State is urging DOE to develop several
drafts of a transportation EIS and to incorporate public
input throughout the process. The State says the
Department should allow lengthy EIS public comment
periods, from six
months to a year, after
each draft of EIS documents
are released. DOE
should also hold formal
public hearings in states and cities along the transportation
routes.
The Department of Energy, however, is trying to
meet the 2010 deadline by using a “modular” approach
that calls for shipping waste to Yucca Mountain
while the repository is still under construction.Waste would be stored on the surface and moved
into the tunnels in “phases” as construction is completed.
“Instead of building a whole house at one
time, we build part of the house in order to begin receiving
waste,” says Chu.
Besides having the repository built on time, Chu
also has ambitions to reduce the project’s hefty $58
billion “life-cycle” price tag. Whether Chu accomplishes
her goals remains to be seen, but one thing is
certain: State officials in Nevada will continue to
challenge DOE at every step, demanding that the Department
adheres to all public laws and federal regulations
concerning nuclear waste transportation.
Utah Senators Promised Yucca Mountain- Skull Valley Trade-off
|
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, left, with Utah
Senators Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch outside the
White House after their meeting on July 8th, 2002. |
Despite strong hopes that Utah Senators Orrin
Hatch and Robert Bennett would support Nevada’s
fight to kill the Yucca Mountain Project on Capitol
Hill, both Senators announced the day before the
vote that they would support the nuclear waste repository.
Hatch and Bennett made their decision
after meeting with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham,
who promised to help derail efforts to store
nuclear waste on the Goshute Indian Reservation in
Skull Valley, Utah (45 miles southwest of Salt
Lake City). “My message is, in short, that if Yucca
Mountain moves ahead, sites such as the Utah site
will not move ahead,” Abraham told them.
In a July 8 letter to Senator Hatch, Secretary
Abraham promised that Private Fuel Storage (PFS), the consortium
of 8 nuclear power utilities
that has applied to build and run
the Skull Valley storage facility,
would not receive federal funding
or assistance with the project.
“...the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
authorizes DOE to provide funding
and financial assistance only
for shipments of spent fuel to a
facility construction under that
Act,” said Abraham in the letter.
“Because the PFS/Goshute facility
in Utah would be constructed and
operated outside the scope of the
Act, the Department will not fund
or otherwise provide financial assistance
for waste storage, nor can we monitor the
safety precautions the private facility may install.”
Secretary Abraham’s letter urged Senator Hatch
vote for the Yucca Mountain resolution. “...I
think the test course for you to pursue would be to
vote for permanent storage at Yucca Mountain. In
my view, this would greatly reduce, if not eliminate,
the chances that this material will end up in
Utah.”
Secretary Abraham’s arguments successfully
swayed the formerly undecided Utah senators. “I
would rather [nuclear waste] pass through Utah
than stay in Utah,” Senator Bennett told the press.
However, Private Fuel Storage spokeswoman
Sue Martin told the Salt Lake Tribune that the Skull
Valley storage will be needed no matter what happens
with Yucca Mountain. She said nuclear plants
in 35 states are running out of on-site storage and
must move waste soon if they are to keep producing
electricity. The earliest Yucca Mountain could
be open is 2010, while the Goshute Storage Facility,
if granted a license later this year, could be operational
by 2005.
Martin also pointed out that Private Fuel Storage
had never planned to tap federal funds set aside
for nuclear waste disposal. In fact, the very reason
PFS is pursuing private storage at Skull Valley is
because several nuclear utilities have lost confidence
in the government’s promise to dispose of
high level waste.
Each member of the
PFS consortium owns nuclear power plants. According to Private Fuel Storage, all of these companies are considering storing spent fuel at the PFS Goshute facility until the federal government has a permanent repository ready.
The companies are:
- Xcel Energy
- Genoa Fuel Tech
- American Electric Power
- Southern California Edison
- Southern Nuclear Company
- First Energy
- Entergy
- Florida Power and Light
Nonetheless, Senators Hatch and Bennett hope
that lack of federal funding will be a strong
enough incentive for nuclear utilities to hold out
for the Yucca Mountain repository. On July 9,
Hatch and Bennett were two of the 60 Senators
who voted to override Nevada’s veto. Reflecting
on his vote in Favor of Yucca Mountain, Senator
Hatch said, “This is the best we can do,” Senator
Hatch said. “I don't feel good about this at all.
These are our neighbors to the west in Nevada. I
wish I didn't have to vote this way.” But in the
end, Senators Hatch and Bennett seemed to believe
that a vote for Yucca Mountain was a vote against
Skull Valley.
UTAH STATE NUCLEAR WASTE LAW OVERTURNED
In a related story, a U.S. judge ruled in late
July that several Utah laws designed to keep nuclear
waste out of the state are illegal. The Utah
legislature had passed a package of laws regulating
nuclear waste and imposing large fees on wastestorage
business. But U.S. District Judge Tena
Campbell said it was a federal issue beyond the
reach of state lawmakers. She said Private Fuel
Storage has a right to seek a federal license without
state interference.
Campbell’s ruling prohibits Utah from enforcing
the antinuclear waste
laws and removes financial
obstacles for PFS. The
state had tried to impose a
$5 million license application
fee and a requirement
that PFS pay a
“transaction fee” equal to
75% of the value of its
contracts.
The state of Utah also
challenged the contract between the tribe and Private
Fuel Storage, saying it was not properly approved
by the Goshutes. Campbell, however, ruled
that the contract is a tribal matter and does not fall
under state jurisdiction. Utah Governor Mike
Leavitt said the state would appeal Campbell’s decisions.
The ruling could set an important precedent
for Nevada antinuclear laws.
Experts Disagree on
Yucca Mountain Capacity
Current plans for the Yucca Mountain repository
do not include enough space to hold all the liquid
radioactive waste to be produced by the federal
government.
The liquid waste will be converted to solid glass
logs before disposal. DOE now estimates that only
a third of the 23,000 glass cylinders will fit based
on the repository’s current legal capacity of 77,000
tons.
DOE spokesman Joe Davis says that Yucca
Mountain is physically able to hold all nuclear
waste to be produced. All that’s needed is Congressional
approval to expand the legal capacity.
Source: Las Vegas Review Journal 9/22/02
In Brief . . . . Recent Nuclear News
A volcanic eruption at Yucca Mountain... could do
more damage than previously thought, possibly forcing
radioactive waste from its burial site to the surface.
If long-dormant volcanoes near the dump
sprang back to life, molten
rock moving at up to 600
mph could fill the repository
within hours according to an
article in the July issue of
Geophysical Research Letters.
(Las Vegas Review
Journal 8/1/02)
DOE told to use taxpayer
money... A federal appeals court has ruled that billions
of dollars in damages that the Energy Department
is likely to owe to nuclear reactor owners for
DOE’s failure to store nuclear waste will be paid by
taxpayers, not ratepayers. Estimates of damages are
from $2 billion to $60 billion. The court ruled that
Nuclear Waste Fund cannot be used by DOE to pay
damages to the utilities. (New York Times 9/26/02)
Test Site considered for plutonium pits.... The Nevada
Test Site is one of five government facilities
being considered by DOE for a new plant to manufacture
plutonium pits that form the core of nuclear
weapons. A final decision is expected in 2004. The
other sites being considered are Carlsbad, NM near
the WIPP site; Los Alamos, NM; the Pantex plant in
Amarillo, TX, and the Savannah River site in SC.
Previously the pits were made at Rocky Flats near
Denver. That facility was closed due to contamination.
(Las Vegas Review Journal 9/27/02)
Water level not affected by DOE pumping... The
level of ground water south of Yucca Mountain is
not declining, says a study by U.S. Geological Survey.
DOE funded the study to find out what effect its
groundwater pumping was having on the region.
( Las Vegas Sun 10/4/02)
Court agrees to hear three Yucca
Lawsuits together....Nevada’s request to combine three lawsuits related
to the federal government’s push to construct
a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain was
granted by a federal appeals court. The suits challenge
DOE’s site suitability rules, environmental
impact statement, EPA’s radiation standard, and
NRC’s licensing rule. The DC court of appeals is
expected to hear arguments in all three cases in
September of 2003.(Inside Energy 11/14/02)
Price-Anderson Partially Renewed
by Congress... Congress has renewed the provisions of the
Price-Anderson Act that protect DOE contractors at
government facilities in case of an accident. Provisions
related to insurance for commercial nuclear
power plants were not extended. The nuclear industry
needs the extension for construction of new nuclear
power plants. (Inside Energy 11/18/02)
|
Emergency response training questioned... At a
Nevada Legislative Committee on High-Level Radioactive
waste, Senator Lawrence Jacobsen questioned
DOE project manager Russ Dyer about transportation
planning. Dyer stated that it would be 2003 before DOE has a transportation
plan. Then three or four years before 2010, equipment and training reviews
would begin at the state level. Veteran volunteer firefighter Jacobsen said
Nevada volunteer firefighters and paramedics are concerned because they feel that they do not have adequate training to handle an accident involving radioactive materials. (Las Vegas Sun 10/10/02)
The names have been changed... DOE’s Las Vegas
office in charge of Yucca Mountain is now the Office
of Repository Development (ORD.) The new name
reflects the shift from research to development. The
previous name was the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization
Office (YMSCO). . . . W. John Arthur III, a
DOE manager from the WIPP project in New Mexico,
will become chief of site development and licensing
in Las Vegas in early December in a newly created
job, deputy director for repository development.
. . . .Arthur will be chief of DOE’s Nevada-based operations
that involve 100 federal employees and 1,500
contract workers. . . . DOE is recruiting a counterpart
to be deputy director at Washington headquarters in
charge of “strategy and program development.”
. . . .Russ Dyer, longtime project manager, will be a
senior project advisor under Arthur. Both Arthur and
his DC counterpart will report to Margaret Chu, director
of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. (DOE and Las Vegas Review Journal
10/11/02)
Nuclear industry plays politics... In the 2002 election, the nuclear industry doled out more than
$1.5 million to federal candidates in competitive races, according to a November 2002 report by
Public Citizen. The contributions came from nuclear power plant owners and operators and three
leading trade associations: the American Public Power Association; Edison Electric Institute, and
the Nuclear Energy Institute. (Source: access the report: www.citizen.org)
Transportation procurement is starting... DOE has drafted a list of services it will need for a Yucca Mountain “transportation integration contractor” responsible for coordinating shipments of spent fuel and high level waste to Yucca Mountain. Tasks include: planning, equipment acquisition, analysis and management plans, operational planning and scheduling for mobilization.
(Source: Nuclear Waste News 10/3/02)
|
|