ECA Update: April 15, 2013
Published: Mon, 04/15/13
Congressman Hastings' Speech to the Energy Communities Alliance Conference
Congressman Hastings April 12, 2013 Washington, D.C. - Congressman Doc Hastings today spoke to the Energy Communities Alliance about the challenges and opportunities facing nuclear cleanup communities like the Tri-Cities. Hastings focused on strategies to strengthen cleanup and his priorities for land use, as cleanup is complete. The text of Hastings' prepared remarks follows:
"Thank you for inviting me to speak with you today about the unique challenges and opportunities facing our nuclear cleanup communities. First, the organizers of this conference deserve credit for timing your trip to coincide with the release of President Obama's budget request. It's very unusual to receive the President' budget this late in the year - but your ECA leadership was certainly very fortuitous in their planning.
Before I delve into what's happening here in Washington, D.C., I want to talk a little about the real work that is being accomplished in our communities. As you know, I represent Hanford - which is comprised of two EM sites that are quite literally in my backyard. Now, we all know that Hanford has been in the news lately. But, amid all the headlines I'm concerned that an important perspective is being lost.
Great work is being accomplished at both the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection. Progress is being made...and it's being made safely thanks to those on the ground at our sites day in and day out. Take the River Corridor Project for example. Fifteen years ago there was no plan for cleaning up this waste along the Columbia River. Today the project is nearly 90 percent complete. At the Plutonium Finishing Plant 77 percent of gloveboxes have been removed.
At K West the first stream of highly radioactive material from under water storage has been retrieved.
Four billion gallons of contaminated groundwater has been treated across Hanford.
And as we read often misleading reports about exploding tanks and leaks...news about the progress being made at the tank farms where some of the most challenging cleanup work is ongoing - too often goes unnoticed beyond the Tri-Cities. In fact, just this week tank farm employees have hit and exceeded 7 million hours of work without a noteable injury.
Perspective is also important when it comes to the potential tank leaks. Many of the tanks in question have been designated assumed leakers since the 1970's. No new contamination has been detected in the soil. And, the overall amount of materials that could be leaking from these tanks is minute compared to the millions of gallons of waste that leaked over a course of decades.
This is not to minimize the importance of cleaning up this waste - in fact the solution is - and has always been - a robust tank retrieval program so that this waste can be treated and stored as low level waste or shipped to Yucca Mountain. Progress must continue at the tank farms AND progress must continue on the Hanford waste that was never put in tanks, but instead went directly into the ground.
At the Waste Treatment Plant, despite my frustration about the Department's lack of transparency in their planning, real progress is being made and the project is over 60 percent complete. WTP is not optional - it is in fact the key to cleaning up the vast majority of the tank waste.
This is all critical work. And, it is work that all our EM sites and communities should be proud of.
Now I want to talk about the budget process. Like many of you, I spent time yesterday going through the budget request to find out what the President's plan is for cleanup activities next year. The first thing that struck me was the lack of details that are typically included the budget request for EM. So, we don't know much about exactly where and how the proposed funding would be spent. As all of you know, when it comes to cleanup, details matter - and I hope to get more information soon.
I'm also still waiting on the Department of Energy to submit its reprogramming package to Congress. While the Department acted uncharacteristically quickly to ensure that layoff and furlough notices were issued and to make job impact statistics public even before they were finalized - no information about the reprogramming package has been made available.
Cleanup progress, as well as jobs, in all of our communities will be impacted by this reprogramming package. It's simply not fair to EM sites, workers or communities for the Administration to continue holding up the reprogramming package.
As we look to the year ahead and beyond, there are a few steps that can be taken to help strengthen the overall EM program and the cleanup budget climate.
First, Congress and the White House must get back to a regular budget and appropriations process. I understand how difficult it is for sites, contractors and communities to plan efficient cleanup work without certain and timely annual budgets. This year, I think there is reason to be hopeful. The Senate just passed its first budget in four years. The White House has just submitted its long awaited budget proposal. And, I know that Chairman Rogers and Chairwoman Mikulski are committed to getting appropriations bills done this year.
Second, the federal government must get optional spending under control and must get a handle on entitlements. Overspending on government expansions and optional government activities leaves less money for legal obligations like cleanup that should come first. While there can be legitimate debate about the value of various government programs - it's just plain common sense that if the federal government cannot meet its existing legal obligations, it should not take on even more.
Third, the Department of Energy must increase transparency and be prepared to answer basic questions if cleanup investments are to be sustained. Perhaps nowhere is this more critical than at the Waste Treatment Plant where rebaselining efforts have been put on hold, some work remains stopped and information about cost and schedule have not been made available.
For nearly a year, I have asked for details in writing outlining the schedule, cost and workscope associated with the Department's plan to resolve WTP technical issues and testing. Most recently, the Department has said that Secretary Chu's expert panels are working on these issues. This work, though, has taken place behind closed doors. Advocates of EM in Congress and in communities like all of yours need complete information to be successful in our efforts to advance cleanup projects.
Fourth, Yucca Mountain must move forward. Yucca Mountain is our nation's legal repository for high level nuclear defense waste. I will work to stop the $60 million requested by President Obama to continue the illegal shutdown of Yucca Mountain. I will also oppose legislative efforts in Congress that circumvent Yucca Mountain, erase decades of work on a national repository and take us back to square one.
Finally, with a new Energy Secretary on the horizon, I'm hopeful that an Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management will be nominated. While site managers should be empowered to make decisions, advocate for their projects and manage cleanup and communications for their site, a confirmed Assistant Secretary is required to oversee the EM program and ensure that site managers have the resources, tools and support they need to get the job done.
Now, I want to switch gears and talk about some opportunities for our communities as we look to our post-cleanup future, diversification of our local economies and jobs.
In March, Dave Huizenga testified before the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. He noted that and I quote, "In 2009, the total footprint of EM's cleanup sites was 931 square miles. Through January 2013, we have reduced that figure by 74 percent" end quote.
74 percent. The fact is sites are being cleaned up and land is being freed up. This land is no longer needed by the government and should be turned back over to the communities for economic development, recreation and other activities. With a 74 percent footprint reduction the expectation is that this turnover could and should happen sooner rather than later in some areas.
When I spoke to you in 2011, I noted my encouragement that DOE was prepared to begin taking the steps required to transfer land based on a request from TRIDEC. Two years later, that transfer is still pending. There is no reason why proposals to make good use of land no longer needed by the federal government should be held up in Washington, D.C. for years.
Particularly as more land becomes available, a fair and timely process will be required to ensure that land no longer needed by the Department of Energy is transferred out of government hands and can be used for other purposes. In my view, local communities must not only have input, but must have real authority over decisions about future land use. The federal government should not be in the business of dictating to our communities how and when this land can best be used.
In closing, I'd like to personally encourage all of you to join me in a few minutes at the Subcommittee hearing on our bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. As you know, this bill, which will ensure that selected sites throughout the country remain preserved and accessible to the public for generations to come, is one of my top priorities. I'm pleased that this bill has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and I'll keep working towards the goal of getting this legislation signed into law this Congress.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm happy to take a few questions."
Miller participates at Energy Communities Alliance meeting
NNSA Blog April 12, 2013 This week Neile Miller, Acting Administrator for NNSA, spoke to the elected leaders of the communities that host NNSA facilities at the Energy Communities Alliance annual meeting in D.C. Acting Administrator Miller thanked the communities for their support over the past year and indicated that their partnership is essential to helping NNSA execute its mission.
Acting Administrator Miller noted that in his FY14 budget request delivered to Congress this week, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to leading the global effort to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, ensuring the safety of the American people, and guaranteeing that the United States' nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and effective while it is still needed. His request includes $11.7 billion for NNSA, an increase of 1.6 percent over FY13.
She also provided insight into NNSA's priorities for the coming year emphasizing three core things NNSA will be focused on accomplishing in 2013.
First, as always, NNSA is keeping the American people safe, and our communities are the pillars that support our nuclear deterrent, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism efforts. Second, NNSA is also modernizing in every way, as many have probably seen with construction jobs, subcontractor support, and changes to the nature and scope of work at our facilities. And, finally, NNSA is holding our people - Federal employees and Management & Operating contractors - accountable. NNSA must do more with less, so we owe it to our communities and the American taxpayers to rethink and revise everywhere we can.
NNSA recognizes that our community partners have a great interest in how we communicate and engage on issues of mutual interest. NNSA is committed to operate in a manner that is open, proactive, responsive, and well-coordinated in managing relationships with state, local and tribal government stakeholders.
DOE official: Focusing on Yucca prevents 'progress' on nuclear waste Zack Colman, The Hill April 11, 2013 A senior Energy Department (DOE) official shot down using Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a long-term storage site for nuclear waste Thursday, underscoring the difficulty lawmakers working on a comprehensive waste storage bill might encounter.
Peter Lyons, assistant secretary of nuclear energy with DOE, said the politics surrounding Yucca Mountain made the site unfeasible.
"I want to see progress. And in my view, I don't believe we will see that progress if we continue to force Yucca Mountain on Nevada," Lyons said during a House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water hearing.
The comment comes at a time when the House and the Senate are working to find common ground on Yucca in an eventual nuclear waste storage bill.
It illuminates the tough slog ahead to reconcile differing House and Senate views on Yucca in order to strike a comprehensive agreement, which Senate energy leaders contend is possible.
House Republicans maintain Yucca needs to be the nation's long-term repository, as outlined in federal law. They say they won't agree to a nuclear waste storage deal without Yucca.
A bill with Yucca, however, stands almost no chance in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) played a major role in getting President Obama to pull the plug on Yucca in 2009. He is unlikely to call a bill that includes Yucca.
Lyons, a Nevada native, alluded to the sense that opposition to Yucca is almost a necessity for Nevada lawmakers. The state's residents resent that a 1982 federal law forced the nation's nuclear waste onto Yucca.
Lyons advised lawmakers to "cut our losses and move ahead" without Yucca.
He endorsed recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, an expert panel convened by Obama in 2010.
Among other items, the expert panel suggested allowing states to apply to become the nation's long-term repository and moving some waste to interim storage sites.
The findings form the foundation of a bipartisan Senate bill that Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is spearheading.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to consider the FY 2014 DOE proposed budget April 18, 2013 (10:00AM) LIVE WEBCAST Witness Panel
The Honorable Daniel B. Poneman
Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer U.S. Department of Energy Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee to consider the FY 2014 NNSA proposed budget April 17, 2013 (2:30 PM) LIVE WEBCAST Witness Panel
The Honorable Neile L. Miller
Acting Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration Hastings Announces Kickoff to 2013 Nuclear Cleanup Caucus Briefings Congressman Doc Hastings April 8, 2013 Washington, D.C., Apr 8 - Congressman Doc Hastings (WA-04), Chairman of the bipartisan House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, today announced the first briefing on the Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear cleanup program for 2013.
"These briefings provide valuable insight and help educate my colleagues in Congress and their staff about nuclear cleanup issues. The fact is, cleanup doesn't happen in Washington, D.C. - it's accomplished at our sites in our communities," Hastings said. "I'm pleased to announce that we're kicking off this series with an overview of the Environmental Management Program from DOE Senior Advisor for Environmental Management Dave Huizenga."
WHAT: Environmental Management Overview from Senior Advisor Dave Huizenga
WHEN: Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 8:30 AM
WHERE: 122 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. The complete Cleanup Caucus briefing schedule will be announced shortly.
Each briefing will focus on a specific site office and the presentations are conducted by the local site managers and contractors. The briefings are open to Members of Congress, Congressional staff, the news media, and other interested individuals.
As founder and Chairman of the bipartisan Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, Hastings arranges and hosts the briefings each year. If you have questions about the briefings, room locations, or schedule, please contact Whitney Riggs at 202-225-5816.
GAO Testimony: Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel: Observations on the Key Attributes and Challenges of Storage and Disposal Options Government Accountability Office April 11, 2013
In November 2009, GAO 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.
The Department of Energy's Use of the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility at the Oak Ridge Reservation DOE IG April 12, 2013
The Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) is an above-ground waste disposal facility designed to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) manages the Department of Energy's (Department) contract with URS | CH2M Oak Ridge, LLC (UCOR), which has operated EMWMF since August 2011. We found that OREM had not maximized its use of available capacity at EMWMF, and as a consequence, may incur more than $14 million in unnecessary disposal costs. Specifically, OREM permitted its contractors to send minimally contaminated waste to EMWMF that may have otherwise been acceptable for disposal in the sanitary landfill at a much lower cost per unit. For example, contractor officials told us that from fiscal years 2002 through 2011, they had disposed of 140,000 cubic yards of material (minimally contaminated waste plus required fill) at EMWMF that likely could have been disposed of in the sanitary landfill at a much lower cost per unit. The Department of Energy (Department) had not established site-specific surface authorized limits for determining when certain types of minimally contaminated waste could be disposed of in sanitary landfills rather than in EMWMF. In the absence of such site-specific authorized limits, certain surfacecontaminated wastes have been disposed of at EMWMF that potentially could have been safely disposed at sanitary landfills. Maintaining this approach could ultimately and unnecessarily utilize 11 percent of EMWMF's waste disposal capacity. During the course of our audit, UCOR recognized the issues we discovered and implemented procedures compliant with Department and landfill permit requirements to allow more waste to be disposed in the sanitary landfill; however, we believe that additional action is necessary to improve efficiency of waste disposal operations and conserve EMWMF capacity. Environmental Management generally concurred with the report and its comments were responsive to our recommendations.
Federal Court Wastes DOE James Conca, Forbes April 10, 2013 Last week a Federal court shot down the long-exercised argument that the Department of Energy (DOE) uses in defense of lawsuits leveled against it for not taking control and disposing of spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors (Court rejects DOE).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling that DOE's argument of unavoidable delays does not absolve them from responsibility under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
This is not a small matter, given that Energy Secretary-nominee Dr. Ernest Moniz is being grilled this week on Capitol Hill over some of these very issues for which he will soon be responsible.
Under NWPA, DOE is required to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel (as well as defense HLW) in a deep underground repository, and to take physical control of the waste beginning in 1998. Utilities who own nuclear reactors have paid about $35 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWFund), of which DOE was given control in order to make this happen.
Although no national repository has been built, one was begun in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as part of the 1987 Amendment to the NWPA decided by Congress, but strongly opposed by Nevada itself (The Screw Nevada Bill). Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and colleagues like former NRC Chair Gregory Jackzo, vowed never to allow this repository to open.
So - Congress decided on Yucca Mt, and Congress and the President have decided it should die. Not that this was a bad decision. The large and unnecessary costs of this site over another better site are too large to disregard, but it's a decision not particularly made by DOE except in name.
DOE made a good faith effort to accomplish this Project, even completed a reasonable license application for Yucca Mt. The Project has been stymied at every step of the way, not the least by budget and political decisions outside of DOE.
Yes, $12 billion was spent, but over 30 years that's a pretty small spend-rate for such a big issue. And anyway, most of that money went to establishing an excellent technical and scientific foundation for any deep geologic disposal site anywhere, especially for how to package and transport highly radioactive waste to wherever it will go. Other countries have gladly taken advantage of this information, as we have of theirs.
These efforts have not been wasted.
With regard to the lawsuit, DOE has pointed to a little-known clause, arguing that unavoidable delays put off the 1998 deadline indefinitely, and that they shouldn't be held to that date. DOE hoped that line of defense would at least reduce its liability in damages.
Unfortunately, Chief Judge Randall Rader did not agree, and wrote that "By the government's admission, the functional result of the unavoidable delays clause releases the government from its statutory burden of performance by January 1998. This it may not do" (Federal Court Ruling).
When Yucca Mt was halted, President Obama formed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (BRC) to decide how to stop these unavoidable delays and get the nuclear program back on track. And, if followed, their recommendations would do just that (Obama's BRC).
The utilities have a sweet deal right now, they have no liability for the waste and the $0.001 per kWhr waste tax going into the NWFund is pretty minor compared to the profits being reaped from these fully-paid-for power plants (11.4 ¢/kWhr sold minus 2.9 ¢/kWhr to generate minus 0.1 ¢/kWhr waste tax = 8.4 ¢/kWhr profit - not bad).
But the NWFund has plenty in it, and plenty more revenue coming in over time, to do this job if, and only if, we follow the BRC recommendations and put the waste in the right place (Nuke Us).
DOE has already paid out $1.2 billion in damages for this issue. What is continued litigation supposed to do? Solve the problem? No. Force DOE to move faster? No. What does everyone think DOE can do, just pick another place without starting the process all over? No. Quickly take charge of the waste and put it someplace else for now? No. Admit they are powerless to do anything against a State or Congress? They are. Keep getting sued so there's no money left to put it anywhere ever? I hope not.
Just what is the positive outcome that these judges, or the public, expect with this ruling, and more like it to come?
Secretary Moniz will have his hands full with this kind of conundrum. But as one of the BRC authors, he also has the knowledge to solve them. And I believe he has the will to do so.
Proposed MOX funding cut, alternatives examined Rob Pavey, The Augusta Chronicle April 10, 2013 The mixed oxide fuel plant being built at Savannah River Site "may be unaffordable," the Obama administration said Wednesday in fiscal 2014 budget requests that would trim $132.7 million from the project and slow its construction.
The MOX plant, designed to dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear bombs by blending it into commercial reactor fuel, is three years behind schedule and its projected cost recently grew from $4.9 billion to $7.7 billion.
The administration said it fully supports the National Nuclear Security Administration's mission to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium but must explore options other than MOX.
"This current plutonium disposition approach may be unaffordable ... due to cost growth and fiscal pressure," the budget summary said, adding that officials will "assess the feasibility of alternative plutonium disposition strategies."
That assessment, along with reduced funding, will result "in a slowdown of MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility Construction in 2014," the proposal said.
MOX construction received $452.7 million in fiscal 2012, when the last budget was adopted, and $478.7 million under a 2013 continuing resolution. The fiscal 2014 proposal of $320 million would be a cut of $132.7 million - or 29.3 percent.
Also slashed in the budget plan was Savannah River Site's Environmental Management budget, which pays for the site's major cleanup and waste-processing activities and the Savannah River National Laboratory.
SRS received $1,187,782 in 2012 and a similar sum under the 2013 resolution. The 2014 proposal is $99.5 million less, representing an 8.4 percent cut.
In its narrative, however, officials said the requested $1,088,200 will still support the liquid waste program, which includes operating the Defense Waste Processing Facility and the Saltstone Facility and continued closure activities for liquid waste Tanks 5 and 6.
The site and its contractors employ about 11,000 workers, including about 2,300 at the MOX construction site.
How Should We Deal With Nuclear Waste? Keith Johnson, The Wall Street Journal April 11, 2013 High-level nuclear waste has been piling up in the U.S. for decades, and we still have no permanent home for it.
Policy makers have been wrestling with the issue since at least 1982, when Congress mandated that waste be stored deep underground. In 1987, lawmakers chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent repository; while it was being built, utilities simply stored spent fuel inside cooling pools at nuclear-reactor sites, while paying the government to permanently dispose of the waste.
But billions of dollars and decades later, the U.S. is back to square one. Nevada wasn't happy hosting the nation's nuclear-waste dump, and the Obama administration formally pulled the plug on Yucca Mountain in 2010.
We asked Jack Spencer, senior research fellow for nuclear-energy policy at the Heritage Foundation, Edwin Lyman, senior scientist in the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Richard K. Lester, head of the department of nuclear science and engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to weigh in on the issue. Here are edited excerpts:
Fool Me Twice?
WSJ: The Department of Energy's latest plan for nuclear waste calls for an interim storage facility by 2025 and a deep, Yucca Mountain-style facility by 2050. Does this plan answer once and for all the question of what to do with spent nuclear fuel?
MR. SPENCER: No matter how waste is ultimately managed or disposed of, any approach needs a permanent repository. But an interim site removes the incentive for the two major interests, the federal government and utilities, to pursue a repository, thus virtually guaranteeing that none will ever get built. Building another interim site on the promise of another repository would be a classic case of "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
MR. LYMAN: Moving forward with centralized storage wouldn't only slow momentum for a geologic repository, it would come with uncertain, or even negative, impacts on safety; the risks associated with transporting spent fuel not once but twice need to be weighed against the modest benefits of consolidation. Dry-cask storage [at reactor sites] could be expanded as needed to thin out the [cooling] pools.
MR. LESTER: Common sense would conclude that if you have 70,000 tons of material, spent fuel or anything else stored at scores of sites around the country with limited storage capacity, and your plan is to send this to an unknown destination at an unknown date, it would be sensible to have one or more centralized storage depots for the material while you figure out what to do. The spent-fuel management "system" is dysfunctional, and makes no sense from a logistical and materials-management perspective. Fixing it will take more than the publication of another plan.
WSJ: Should the U.S. completely rethink how it handles nuclear waste? Perhaps create a European-style government agency? Hand it over to the private sector? As it is, utilities have been paying for nonexistent waste storage for decades. MR. SPENCER: I believe the entire system needs to be reformed. One common thread between the approaches of other countries that have even a semblance of functionality is that the waste producers are responsible for waste management. Disconnecting the responsibility for waste management from the entity that produces it undermines the incentive for those that have the means and the know-how to come up with a solution to do anything about it.
It might be that the private sector can't provide services as well as the government can. Or, more likely, we will see that the private sector can provide the entire spectrum of services better than the government can. Just having a choice in the matter makes this a better approach than our current system.
MR. LYMAN: It depends on what entity is best positioned to overcome the near-insurmountable obstacles of locating and licensing repository sites; both government-led and private sector-led attempts to license new spent-fuel facilities ended in failure, due largely to state-level opposition. The federal government has a wider array of potential incentives (read, bribes) that it can bring to bear than private industry does, and can better address environmental concerns. I don't have as much faith as Jack does that the invisible hand of the free market can work its magic on this problem. But I agree it isn't appropriate for the government to take title to spent fuel forever.
MR. LESTER: In the mid-1970s, I proposed shifting responsibility for high-level waste into a federally chartered public corporation; that proposal went nowhere, and the federal nuclear-waste program has been used as a political football ever since. Now, 35 years later, the president's Blue Ribbon Commission has again recommended forming a dedicated government corporation to manage the waste. At this point, such a scheme probably doesn't go far enough.
A better proposal may be to assign responsibility to the electric utilities themselves. A utility-led initiative would introduce more competition--no bad thing given the unhappy experience with the Department of Energy's monopoly.
The Terrorism Threat
WSJ: Is part of the problem the U.S.'s use of a once-through fuel cycle? Would it make sense to embrace some sort of closed-fuel cycle, with limited reprocessing of spent fuel? MR. SPENCER: To answer that, we'd have to know, how much repository space is there? Under what conditions will waste be stored? How much will we produce? What technologies will be developed? What type of reactor technologies will be developed? What will these things cost?
Maybe some company could offer a reprocessing service that gives the utility a smaller quantity of waste for the repository plus some nuclear fuel to help offset the cost. Maybe another company could offer a reactor that produces less waste--who knows how the market will unfold?
We think of cost in terms of operating a repository versus the cost of reprocessing; or we think about the economics of reprocessing in terms of extracting usable fuel versus the cost of fresh fuel. This is wrong. Reprocessing should be understood simply as a tool for waste management.
Government must stay away from the business of nuclear energy and stick to regulation. This will allow industry to solve waste problems through competition and innovation.
MR. LYMAN: The problem with Jack's answer is that it presupposes that reprocessing provides benefits for nuclear-waste management. The opposite is true: Reprocessing is the worst possible alternative to deep geological disposal because it greatly increases the cost, as well as the dangers, of waste management.
Reprocessing increases the total volume of nuclear waste sevenfold over direct disposal; those multiple new waste streams present additional challenges for storage, transport and disposal. Even worse, reprocessing produces copious quantities of concentrated nuclear-weapon-usable materials, primarily plutonium. One large reprocessing plant can produce about 1,000 bombs' worth of plutonium each year.
Adding insult to injury, this technological disaster costs a lot of money. If Jack's free-market utopia for spent-fuel management did come to pass, it would be the death knell for reprocessing. [President] Reagan told the private sector if it wanted reprocessing, it would have to pay for it. What happened? The utilities went with Yucca Mountain instead.
MR. SPENCER:I don't fear terrorists stealing plutonium in the U.S.; the commercial nuclear industry is fully capable of securing those materials.
What I am proposing is far from a free-market utopia. I am suggesting a system where waste producers are responsible for the waste they produce. It draws on market forces, rather than political ones, to determine how to best manage and dispose of nuclear waste.
MR. LYMAN: I don't agree with Jack's optimism that revolutionary new reprocessing technologies will come along. And I must take strong exception to his cavalier attitude toward nuclear terrorism. To imagine that private industry, needing to cut costs to the bone, could do a better job at securing massive quantities of bomb-grade material is a fantasy.
MR. LESTER:Ed's focus is on what should be done, while Jack's is on who should choose. Both have merit, but when it comes to actually breaking the impasse over nuclear waste I'd have to give the nod to Jack. We need a new institutional structure that creates incentives rather than disincentives for innovation at the back of the fuel cycle.
For a quarter-century, while it was focused on Yucca Mountain, the Department of Energy wasn't even allowed to consider storage alternatives--an extraordinary, self-imposed federal moratorium on nuclear-waste innovation. The nation hasn't been well-served by the federal spent-fuel management monopoly. It is a system stacked against innovation. When we fix this, we'll have a real chance to resolve the problem.
Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times April 8, 2013 WASHINGTON -- All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.
The position of the former chairman, Gregory B. Jaczko, is not unusual in that various anti-nuclear groups take the same stance. But it is highly unusual for a former head of the nuclear commission to so bluntly criticize an industry whose safety he was previously in charge of ensuring.
Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, "I didn't really come to it until recently."
"I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems," which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. "Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem."
Dr. Jaczko made his remarks at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington in a session about the Fukushima accident. Dr. Jaczko said that many American reactors that had received permission from the nuclear commission to operate for 20 years beyond their initial 40-year licenses probably would not last that long. He also rejected as unfeasible changes proposed by the commission that would allow reactor owners to apply for a second 20-year extension, meaning that some reactors would run for a total of 80 years.
Dr. Jaczko cited a well-known characteristic of nuclear reactor fuel to continue to generate copious amounts of heat after a chain reaction is shut down. That "decay heat" is what led to the Fukushima meltdowns. The solution, he said, was probably smaller reactors in which the heat could not push the temperature to the fuel's melting point.
The nuclear industry disagreed with Dr. Jaczko's assessment. "U.S. nuclear energy facilities are operating safely," said Marvin S. Fertel, the president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. "That was the case prior to Greg Jaczko's tenure as Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman. It was the case during his tenure as N.R.C. chairman, as acknowledged by the N.R.C.'s special Fukushima response task force and evidenced by a multitude of safety and performance indicators. It is still the case today."
Dr. Jaczko resigned as chairman last summer after months of conflict with his four colleagues on the commission. He often voted in the minority on various safety questions, advocated more vigorous safety improvements, and was regarded with deep suspicion by the nuclear industry. A former aide to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, he was appointed at Mr. Reid's instigation and was instrumental in slowing progress on a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles from Las Vegas.
House staffer heads to DOE Zack Colman, The Hill April 11, 2013 An aide of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Energy and Water is leaving to join the Energy Department (DOE).
Joe Levin will start Monday as associate director for external coordination in the DOE's budget office.
Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) broke the news during a Thursday hearing, wishing Levin well as he heads "back to the dark side."
Levin has been with the committee since March 2009.
|
|
