ECA Update: October 31, 2016
|
IN THIS UPDATE: DOE Releases draft Request for Information on Private Initiatives to Develop Interim Storage Facilities
DOE Releases draft Request for Information on Private Initiatives to Develop Interim Storage Facilities ECA Staff October 31,
2016 Late last week, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) posted notice in the Federal Register of a draft Request for Information (RFI) on Private Initiatives to Develop Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities. The purpose of the RFI is to gather input on the role of private initiatives (PIs) for private consolidated interim storage facilities (ISF), whether pilot-scale or larger-scale, as an alternative or in addition to federal facilities sited using a consent-based siting process.
The RFI reads, “Although not envisioned in the Administration’s Strategy, [private initiatives] represent a potentially promising alternative that can be used either solely or in addition to federal facilities for consolidated interim
storage.”
The RFI outlines twelve questions on which they are seeking input:
- What key factors should be considered to ensure that private initiatives (PIs), as part of the overall integrated nuclear waste management system, would provide a workable solution for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste?
- How could a PI benefit: A) The local community and state or Tribe in which an interim storage
facility (ISF) is sited? B) Neighboring communities?
- What type of involvement if any should the Department or other federal agency consider having with the PI and the community regarding organizational, structural, and contractual frameworks and why?
- What are the benefits and drawbacks of a PI, compared to a federally-financed capital project resulting in a government-owned contractor operated (GOCO) interim storage facility?
- What assurances to the Government do you think would be appropriate, to ensure that SNF stored at a private ISF, would be managed effectively so as to contain
the costs to the Government?
- What possibilities are there with respect to business models for a PI, and what are the benefits and disadvantages of those models?
- How could a PI manage liabilities that might arise during the storage
period?
- What state/local/tribal authorizations/approvals would be needed?
- How can the Government continue to explore or implement the PI concept in a fair, open and transparent manner going forward?
- What, if any, supporting agreements might be expected between the Government and the host state/tribe/local community associated with a PI?
- What other considerations should be taken into account?
- Are there any alternative approaches to developing non-federally-owned facilities that might be proposed (e.g. how projects would be financed, anticipated regulatory and legal issues, etc.)? If so, what are they, are there proposed solutions, and how would the above questions be answered with respect to such approaches?
DOE specifically notes, “potential host/neighboring communities, potential ISF operators and existing nuclear waste facility operators, among others, may be interested in responding to this RFI.”
Responses are due by January 27, 2017, and should be sent via email to PrivateISF@hq.doe.gov with the subject line, “Response to the RFI on Private Initiatives to Develop Consolidated SNF Storage Facilities.” DOE is asking that responses be limited
to approximately 15 pages. Any questions about the draft RFI can be sent to the same email address.
The full RFI is available on the DOE-NE website, here. |
|
| November
2016 | | 9 | DOE-EM Site Specific Advisory Board Meeting in Las Vegas, NV |
|
| November
2016 | | 9 | DOE-EM Site Specific Advisory Board
Meeting in Oak Ridge, TN |
|
| November 2016 | | 16-18 | INVITATION ONLY 2016 Intergovernmental Meeting with DOE in New Orleans, LA |
|
Find the most recent ECA Bulletin here |
|
