29.03.2015 Views

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

this section, the Secretary, beginning not later than January 31, 1998, will dispose<br />

of the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this<br />

subtitle.‖<br />

When the legislation was formulated, the repository was estimated to open by<br />

January 31, 1998. The clause went unnoticed in the 1987 amendment. In the<br />

absence of a repository (even today, more than a decade after this planned date), the<br />

utility industry filed lawsuits holding the DOE to this date for transfer of the title to<br />

the spent fuel. Seventy-two different lawsuits were brought against the DOE for its<br />

failure to begin accepting spent fuel as stated in the Act.<br />

One utility, Exelon Corp., has dropped the breach-of-contract litigation against<br />

the DOE, and settled for reimbursement of spent fuel storage costs it has incurred,<br />

and will incur, as a result of DOE inaction. [2] Eighty million dollars to cover past<br />

storage costs and additional annual reimbursements to cover future spent fuel<br />

storage costs, estimated at as much as $300 million, were agreed to. Other utilities<br />

began following suit. It was assumed that Yucca Mountain would open in 2010, as<br />

then planned. With Yucca Mountain now ―off the table,‖ in the words of the current<br />

administration, costs must keep accumulating.<br />

Twenty-nine years after the NWPA was enacted, there is still no operating<br />

repository in the U.S. However, no other countries, including major nuclear energy<br />

electricity generating countries like France and Japan, have decided on their<br />

repository sites either, or even on their ultimate technology options for disposal. In<br />

retrospect, the NWPA in 1982, specifying as it did a firm course of action for<br />

dealing with spent fuel, may have been ahead of its time. One thing is sure,<br />

however: in implementing better technology for nuclear waste disposal, the<br />

NWPA‘s agreement of a one mill/kWh fee for transfer of spent fuel to DOE will be<br />

a stumbling block. Consensus will be difficult when utilities by law simply transfer<br />

their spent fuel to the government for this minimal fee. Any alteration in present<br />

policy will have to deal with this issue—and it will not go away if ignore it.<br />

11.2 Repository Regulatory Background<br />

The standards and regulations for the repository have been controversial as well.<br />

Responsibility was divided. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was<br />

mandated to promulgate the standards for releases of radioactive material, and the<br />

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to promulgate technical requirements and<br />

criteria for licensing consistent with the EPA standards.<br />

The EPA issued standards in 40CFR Part 191, ―Environmental Radiation<br />

Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High<br />

Level, and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes‖. [5] Under this standard, the yearly<br />

228

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!