atw 2018-05v6

More documents

Recommendations

Info

atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 5 ı May 282 INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET Yucca Mountain: Can the US Finally End the $12 Billion Impasse? NucNet A US federal advisory panel recently took a step in what could be a lengthy process to determine if a deep geological nuclear waste repository should finally be built at Yucca Mountain, a project that has been on the drawing board since the 1970s at a cost of around $ 12 bn (€ 9.7 bn). The panel held a meeting to receive input on reconstructing an electronic library for documents needed to decide on the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Yucca licence application. The meeting, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s headquarters in Maryland, came one week after another development: the White House pledged $ 120 m of funding in its 2019 federal budget proposal to restart licensing for the Yucca site, north of Las Vegas in Nevada, and to establish an interim storage programme to address the growing stockpile of nuclear waste produced by nuclear plants across the nation. The panel meeting, and Donald Trump’s budget proposal, came despite a lack of federal funding for the Yucca project and repeated vows by Nevada officials to fight the process. In the scheme of things, neither development is likely to result in any significant short-term progress on Yucca. But they do mark something of a revival. After decades of wrangling, could the US finally be on course to resolve the question of what to do with the high-level nuclear waste from the nation’s 99 commercial nuclear reactors? Yucca Mountain’s history is complex, and riven by party politics and state antipathy. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the story of Yucca Mountain is a cautionary tale about what can happen when the federal government imposes its will on a state without its cooperation or consent. The site was designated by Congress in 1987 as the sole site to permanently store nuclear waste, but the licensing process was halted when the Obama administration ended funding in 2010. There was, and continues to be, significant support for using Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste. Support comes especially from states housing some of the waste and from small communities near the site hungry for new jobs. The state of Texas – home to the Comanche Peak and South Texas nuclear stations – sued several federal agencies claiming the federal government had violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act by failing to complete the licensing process at Yucca Mountain. The Act codifies the DOE’s responsibility for developing a geologic repository for used nuclear fuel. There is also substantial resistance. Generally speaking, Nevadans don’t want nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain and they never have. Surveys show that around 58 % oppose and 33 % support full development of the repository, according to the Nevada Independent. Governor Brian Sandoval, a Republican, responded to the renewed federal interest in Yucca by warning that “any attempt to resurrect this ill-conceived project will be met with relentless opposition, and maximum resources”. Democrat Aaron Ford was equally as strident. He said: “I am disappointed that the Trump administration is arrogantly choosing to ignore the fact that Nevadans don’t want dangerous nuclear waste dumped on our state.” But the waste has to go somewhere. There is consensus on one inescapable fact: tonnes of nuclear waste need a permanent home, and more is coming. Nuclear reactors have generated more than 76,000 tonnes of nuclear waste since they first began producing electricity in the late 1950s. That’s the equivalent of a football field covered almost 10 metres deep in spent nuclear fuel, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a Washington-based industry group. And every year the US generates between 2,000 and 2,300 tonnes more, primarily from commercial nuclear reactors. The US has been seeking a solution to nuclear waste for decades. With 99 reactors in 30 states producing almost 20 % of the nation’s electricity, concern is building. Without a central facility to send the high-level radioactive waste to, energy generators have been storing it on site in steel canisters, in concrete-lined pools of water or in dry casks. The NEI sums up the industry’s view, saying the DOE shut down the Yucca Mountain project without citing any technical or safety issues. In contrast, decades of scientific study had “consistently concluded that the proposed repository could safely protect future generations”. The NEI says that at the time of the shutdown, in 2010, $ 12 bn had already been spent on Yucca Mountain and 65,000 tonnes of spent fuel were in temporary storage across 33 states. In 2014, a federal court ordered the NRC to complete safety and environmental reviews of the site. However, while these reviews have since concluded that Yucca Mountain complies with all regulations, a final decision awaits an extensive formal hearing. “That hearing can’t happen until Congress funds it,” said the NEI. How Did We Get Here? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a national programme for the safe and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. It included a small fee utilities passed on to consumers to help pay for it all. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain to be the Inside Nuclear with NucNet Yucca Mountain: Can the US Finally End the $12 Billion Impasse? ı NucNet
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 5 ı May permanent disposal site for the waste. The federal government carried out geological and environmental impact studies over several years to prepare the site, promising utility companies it would transport their stockpiles of spent fuel to the site by 1998. The problem is, the federal government never received support for the project from Nevada, which, ironically, has no commercial nuclear plants itself. In 2009, the DOE determined the repository was unworkable and the Obama administration agreed to cut funding. It has been a costly decision. Over the past 20 years, the federal government has paid more than $ 4.5 bn in damages to utilities for not taking ownership of the spent fuel as promised. Since then, the DOE has been using a different tactic to identify communities that may be willing to host a repository. This “consent-based approach” encourages input from the public and from state, local and tribal officials. Proponents say it is designed to be a transparent process that considers the public as partners in managing nuclear waste. The DOE has hosted eight public meetings around the country to structure the process and determine what issues should be included. The DOE’s next step is to design a framework to educate communities about the pros and cons of siting a facility, including the increased national security of having all the waste in one location and the potential economic benefits to the host community. The DOE said it hopes that by bringing states together, it can finally find a willing and informed community to host a storage site with a publicly acceptable system for transporting waste to it. According to the NCSL, finding communities that will take the nuclear waste is not the most difficult part of the problem. The jobs, federal money and other economic benefits that follow a nuclear waste site make it attractive to many. The most significant hurdle can be convincing others in the state that the benefits of accepting nuclear waste outweigh the potential risks. “Finding a consenting community is merely a first step,” wrote William Alley, the former chief of the Yucca Mountain waste storage site, in an opinion piece in New Scientist. “The harder part is getting everyone else to sign on.” Meanwhile, NRC commissioners have directed staff to start gathering information aimed at preparing for the resumption of Yucca Mountain’s licensing. The NEI has underlined that consent-based siting should not take precedence over the government’s legal obligations to find a repository site. Whether that site will be Nevada or somewhere else, seems no closer to a resolution than it was when Yucca Mountain was approved by President and Congress in 2002. Author NucNet The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency Editor responsible for this story: David Dalton Editor in Chief, NucNet Avenue des Arts 56 1000 Brussels, Belgium www.nucnet.org DATF EDITORIAL NOTES 283 Notes Gross electricity production in Germany 2017 The eight nuclear power plants in Germany produced about 76 billion kWh of electricity in 2017 which accounts for 11.7 percent of all gross electricity production in Germany. 50.7 percent of electricity produced in Germany came from fossil energy carriers. 4.3 Other sources 11.7 Nuclear energy 22.5 Lignite Gross electricity production (654,8 billion kWh) 2017 in percent 14.1 Hard coal 33.3 Renewable energy among: 3.1 Hydro power 13.5 Wind power onshore 2.7 Wind power offshore 6.9 Biomass 6.1 Photovoltaics 0.9 Garbage Quelle: AG Energiebilanzen; Stand: 2. Februar 2018 13.2 Gas 0.9 Petroleum products For further details please contact: Nicolas Wendler DAtF Robert-Koch-Platz 4 10115 Berlin Germany E-mail: presse@ kernenergie.de www.kernenergie.de DAtF Notes
Page 1: nucmag.com 2018 5 285 Security Cont
Page 4 and 5: atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 5 ı May
Page 40: atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 5 ı May
Page 57 and 58: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 61 and 62:
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 5 ı May
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
The International Expert Conference
show all

atw 2018-05v6

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?