Energy Communities Alliance (ECA)- Policies

On March 3, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) filed a motion with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withdraw its license application for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The petition followed the release of the Obama administration’s proposed FY 2011 budget that zeroed out funding for the Yucca Mountain Project, closed the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and gave responsibility for used/spent nuclear fuel management and disposition to the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

In addition, Energy Secretary Chu was directed by President Obama to appoint members to the newly established Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC). The BRC is charged with developing recommendations for a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission will specifically advise on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian SNF and defense nuclear waste. It is not, however, a siting commission.

The BRC is scheduled to submit an interim report to the Secretary of Energy in July 2011 and a final report in January 2012.

While the BRC proceeds with their research and hearings, the Yucca Mountain project is uncertain. The NRC has yet to rule on its own Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) finding that DOE does not have the authority to withdraw the license application. However, the NRC Chairman is moving forward with plans to close the license review for Yucca Mountain.

In the interim, the federal government continues to fail to meet its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take responsibility for the disposal of SNF produced at the nation’s nuclear power plants; nor HLW resulting from reprocessing SNF at federal facilities to obtain plutonium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Because of lawsuits filed against DOE by electric utilities, the federal government has settled millions in claims related to its failure to take possession of commercial SNF by 1998. In addition, the federal government has failed to keep agreements with state governments to take possession and dispose of the waste.

Billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars have been spent on the Yucca project. Despite recent actions by the Administration, current law still requires that a geologic repository be built at Yucca Mountain for the permanent disposal of HLW and SNF.

ECA communities that host DOE sites where HLW and SNF have been produced and are being stored have unique health, safety and environmental concerns and needs. They have a key role to play in the discussion and evaluation of alternatives for future high-level waste disposition.

ECA communities urge the following with respect to the disposal of nuclear waste:

1. Trust Is Paramount – One of the great challenges in regard to new nuclear policy and facility development is trust. As stakeholders have testified in front of the BRC, trust in DOE’s ability to manage HLW and develop coherent policies and confidence in the NRC’s independence in licensing a repository has eroded over time. Without trust, public acceptance will be hard to win.

ECA communities want to engage DOE and other federal agencies at the outset of any HLW policy development. ECA communities can help present the local values, concerns and priorities that should be considered as new policies are planned. ECA can also be an honest broker, creating a forum for States, Tribes and other key stakeholders to have a definitive role in the process that will help rebuild trust with DOE and the NRC.

2. Recommendations on the Role of Local Governments – ECA members believe it is critical for local governments and communities to be part of the discussion of future nuclear policy decisions. Their engagement is critical at all steps in the process – beginning with the development of the vision, refining the goals and priorities, and providing input when conflicts arise.

o Being engaged early and actively in any siting process for any new nuclear facilities or geologic repository.

o Ensuring communities have oversight with a clearly defined, funded and recognized role in the licensing, construction and operation of any facility (this includes transportation and emergency response issues).

o Highlighting the impact of new nuclear power development on interim storage of used fuel and potential recycling of used fuel disposition from the community perspective.

o Understanding the federal government’s approach through communication and collaboration with federal officials. Local governments and potential host communities should be informed to the point that they can help their own constituents or related stakeholders recognize the federal government’s priorities, goals, and concerns.

3. Consider Longer Timeline for Final SNF/UNF Disposition - ECA accepts the notion that the need to address commercial SNF/UNF is less pressing -- especially in light of NRC’s recent revision of its waste confidence rule. The revision expresses confidence that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored for at least 60 years beyond the operating license of a reactor – either on site or at a central storage facility – before it needs to be moved to a repository. In addition, the revised rule says the NRC has confidence that repository space will be available “when necessary” (a clear statement of the need for a geological repository for ultimate disposition of the waste).

It is important to note, however, that if nuclear power is to contribute fully to the nation’s clean energy portfolio and help meet carbon reduction targets with public support, the question of what to do with commercial used nuclear fuel must be addressed.

4. One or More Geologic Repositories Are Necessary – ECA supports geologic disposal pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Much of the HLW and SNF across the DOE complex must be removed from sites such as Idaho National Laboratory, Hanford, and the Savannah River Site under stated commitments and/or binding legal agreements.

In addition, DOE owns or generates low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) and non-defense-generated transuranic (TRU) waste that have similar characteristics to Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste (GTCC). These waste streams do not currently have a disposition path, but the preferred disposal alternative (as examined in DOE’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of GTCC Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like Waste) could likely be a geologic repository such as the one originally planned at Yucca Mountain or at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.

Without a geologic repository, these wastes could remained orphaned in communities that never planned to be permanent or long-term storage sites. A final geologic repository - whether at Yucca Mountain, WIPP, or elsewhere - is essential to the final disposition of HLW and integral to the success of DOE’s Environmental Cleanup programs regardless of issues with commercial spent fuel.

5. Yucca Mountain Should Be Considered Along with Other Alternatives – ECA believes the BRC should have the opportunity to review all alternatives and make their recommendations concerning the federal government’s responsibility to manage and ultimately dispose of high-level radioactive waste. Many lessons have been learned by the technical work performed at the Yucca Mountain site. The license application should proceed based on technical merit. The decision to cancel the project should acknowledge the ripple effects such action will create and should not be based on politics.

Yucca Mountain Alternatives – If alternative proposals to Yucca Mountain – such as at WIPP, are advanced, DOE should engage local governments as its first line of communication. ECA’s membership includes the Yucca Mountain host community, Nye County, Nevada, and other Nevada communities, such as Esmeralda County and Lincoln County, who are directly impacted by transportation routes. Our membership also includes communities that may be interested in hosting a repository for HLW, GTCC waste, and/or used fuel.

6. The Nuclear Waste Fund Should Be Used for What It was Originally Intended – As it was originally created as part of the NWPA in 1982,

7. Funding Should Exist for Communities with Defense-Related HLW Waste if Yucca Is Abandoned - ECA respectively requests that the Secretary cease any further action to terminate the Yucca Mountain license application with the NRC and allow for the full and fair NRC licensing process as authorized by the NWPA and approved by Congress. Too much of the obligated defense facility cleanup funds and activities are dependent upon the site to abandon it as at least one of the options being considered. For example, if the Yucca Mountain Project is terminated, waste from DOE vitrification programs at the Defense Waste Processing Facility, Waste Treatment Plant, and West Valley Demonstration Project may no longer meet any Waste Acceptance Criteria. The vitrification products from these sites were all designed specifically to meet Yucca Mountain Waste Acceptance Criteria, so this waste could be orphaned in place for years.

ECA believes DOE should consider providing funding (from the Nuclear Waste Fund or coming into the Yucca program from the Department of Defense through defense authorizations) for communities that may end up hosting sites with “stranded” defense-related HLW. This will help ensure they can address their unique health and safety concerns and needs until a final disposition plan is determined.

8. Existing Law Must Be Modified for A Path Forward Other than Yucca Mountain – The NWPA establishes timelines and responsibilities for developing the Nation’s permanent waste disposition path. In 1987, it was amended, directing DOE to study only Yucca Mountain. The law also prohibits DOE from conducting site-specific activities at a second site unless authorized by Congress. In addition, the NWPA prevents the siting of interim storage facilities until the NRC licenses the construction of the permanent repository - which currently means the geologic repository planned at Yucca Mountain.

Termination of the Yucca Mountain geologic repository program is a major federal action that lacks not only National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, but also opportunities for public involvement. Congress will need to take action that modifies the NWPA before the executive branch of government can make what many view as a unilateral decision without scientific or technical justification.

Legislation to Site and Study Alternatives - Modified or new legislation will be required to permit the study of permanent disposition alternatives and sites. For example, the local government and community of Carlsbad, NM, have expressed interest in expanding the mission at WIPP to include HLW and/or Greater-than-Class-C disposition if the Yucca Mountain project is terminated. However, for that to happen, the 16 miles withdrawn per the Land Withdrawal Act would need to be established as a HLW repository and the HLW prohibition would need to be removed, as would the defense-only pedigree and the limit of 176,000 cubic meters. In addition, if the potential facilities are to be conjoined with WIPP to take advantage of existing infrastructure, the technical and regulatory bases for WIPP permits could be called into question as the other wastes require an NRC license.

9. There Is a Potential for Reprocessing - Most ECA members support and are interested in exploring recycling used fuel (or reprocessing) as part of an integrated approach to permanent waste disposition. In this way, recycling may allow what was once considered “waste” to be a new energy resource. While reprocessing will not eliminate the need for a geologic repository – in fact, a repository will still be required as it will not eliminate the waste stream - reusing used nuclear fuel can potentially reduce the volume, thermal output, and/or radiotoxicity of waste requiring geologic disposal.

When DOE last introduced an initiative to study the potential development of nuclear recycling facilities, over half of the 11 siting grant recipients included ECA communities – the potential hosts as well as the constituents most directly impacted by any new recycling policy or facility.

o Environmental Impacts - Recycling does present some concerns for ECA members, including among others, the environmental impacts of creating increased amounts of Greater-than-Class C and low-level waste streams associated with reprocessing. Presently, neither has clear, final disposition paths.

o Proliferation Concerns - Proliferation is an issue often raised when discussing reprocessing. ECA communities support small modular reactors and other advanced nuclear technologies being developed to be proliferation-resistant and to recycle spent fuel without creating a separate plutonium stream.

ECA members want to continue to work with DOE on the potential benefits and drawbacks related to recycling. They are also uniquely positioned to help address the needs of a community volunteering to host a new nuclear facility. More specifically, ECA can help outline incentives for a host community that may include funding for oversight, workforce development and/or training.

10. Interim Storage Should Be Considered as Part of an Integrated Approach to Ultimate Disposal – ECA believes interim storage, if pursued, must exist alongside a permanent solution and not instead of it. ECA supports the option of pursuing interim storage provided economic incentives, health and safety monitoring, oversight and a legally binding commitment to a final disposition plan are provided to communities who agree to host such facilities

ECA also wants the term “interim” to be legally defined. Policy makers currently use it loosely and have never actually associated it with a fixed timeframe (10, 50, 100, 500 or more years). Until “interim” is defined by law, potential host communities will continue to have significant concerns that, in the absence of a long-term waste management strategy, interim storage sites will become de facto permanent repositories. The federal government must demonstrate a commitment to storage, especially given the failure of three past federal efforts to site interim storage facilities.

ECA notes that the interim storage alternatives do not necessarily have support from our communities without consideration of reprocessing or recycling used nuclear fuel. In fact, ECA members are more likely to have an interest in hosting an interim storage site if a recycling facility is also sited nearby.

[i] Greenberg, Michael R.; West, Bernadette M.; Lowrie, Karen W.; Mayer, Henry J. The Reporter’s Handbook on Nuclear Materials, Energy, and Waste Management. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009.

VIII. HIGH LEVEL WASTE

Energy Communities Alliance Position Paper

Yucca Mountain and the Future of Geologic Disposal

of High Level Waste in the U.S.

December 2011

Key Definitions:[i]