Nuclear waste storage decision will affect SRS
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/12/07/met_558496.shtml
By Rob Pavey | Staff Writer
Monday, December 07, 2009
Centralized storage of the nation's nuclear waste at two unnamed locations is a possible alternative to the Yucca Mountain project scrapped earlier this year by the U.S. Energy Department, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.
A second alternative -- continuing the current practice of onsite storage at 80 locations in 35 states -- was also explored by investigators who compiled the 79-page analysis released last week.
Either option -- or the resurrection of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada -- could have far-reaching impact on the Savannah River Site, according to local experts.
"It's looking to me more and more like Yucca Mountain is not going forward," said Tom Clements, the Southeast nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, who was also interviewed for the GAO report.
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, was being designed as a permanent repository for radioactive material now stored at temporary sites, including SRS, where high-level wastes are encased in glass and stored in steel cylinders to be shipped elsewhere. In addition to government weapons waste, the site was to accommodate spent fuel from commercial reactors.
In March, however, Energy Secretary Steven Chu recommended that new strategies be developed for nuclear waste and that a 27-year, $13.5 billion effort to establish the Yucca Mountain project be abandoned. He plans to appoint a panel to explore alternatives.
The GAO said any centralized storage locations would be "built at existing federal facilities and be owned and operated by DOE," which might mean SRS could be explored for such a role, Mr. Clements said.
"I think there is no doubt SRS would be considered," he said. "The question is whether it would be geologically acceptable, and that is a big question. It is over sandy soils with a high water table and those are the kinds of considerations that could rule out Savannah River Site."
The GAO report, which refers to spent nuclear fuel as "one of the most hazardous substances on earth," noted that the nation's waste dilemma will never go away and that a clear disposal path is essential for the expected resurgence of nuclear power.
"The U.S. national inventory of 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste -- enough to fill a football field more than 15 feet deep -- has been accumulating since the mid-1940s and is expected to more than double to 153,000 metric tons by 2055," the report said.
The GAO also noted that centralized storage would still not be a final solution and would likely generate fierce opposition from any state where such a project was to be located.
"Centralized storage at two locations provides an alternative that could be implemented within 10 to 30 years, allowing more time to consider final disposal options," investigators wrote. "However, DOE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be extremely challenging."
Even if centralized storage became a reality, the report said, "it does not provide for final waste disposal, so much of the waste would be transported twice to reach its final destination."
One option would reduce the volume of waste. Savannah River Site's Community Reuse Organization, in a paper unveiled last month, calls for more dialogue and interest in reprocessing, which extracts materials from spent fuel that can be used again as reactor fuel.
Such a concept, CRO Director Rick McLeod said, could even be tested at SRS.
"We're not trying to push reprocessing as a main theme of our paper, but it's something that's out there and it needs to be looked at," he said. "If the country decides it goes here, it just goes here. But it could also go to someplace like Hanford" in Washington state.
Mr. McLeod also noted that a reprocessing program would not completely eliminate the need for a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste.
"There is still waste that has to go somewhere," he said. "Reprocessing would be a way to treat the material and any residual waste would leave the state. We want a disposition path for the material to leave here."
Such a recycling project, he added, would also mean a large facility with jobs and a new mission for the site.
Local officials are not the only proponents of exploring such an option. In a recent speech to energy interests at the National Press Club, former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici advocated exactly such a program, which could be funded by money earmarked for Yucca Mountain.
"I believe that we should take the $23 billion in the Yucca Mountain Trust Fund, paid for by rate-payers in the various states, and use that money for a pilot project on recycling used nuclear fuel," he said, according to a transcript of his speech posted online by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a sponsor of the event.
Mr. Clements, however, said such a project -- which would bring spent fuel from commercial reactors across the U.S. to South Carolina -- would complicate an already complex network of nuclear waste issues in play at the site.
"It's an expensive pipe dream that would not go anywhere, but SRS would certainly be at the top of the list for that kind of project," he said. "The environmental stakeholders are very much against SRS becoming a reprocessing site, and they would have a real fight on their hands if they wanted to make it the nation's nuclear fuel dump."
Reach Rob Pavey at 868-1222, ext. 119, or [email protected].
WASTE REPOSITORY
What the GAO said (presented as findings, not recommendations):
- The construction of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain would provide a permanent solution for nuclear waste that could allow the government to begin taking possession of the nuclear waste in 10 to 30 years. The nuclear power industry sees this as an important consideration in obtaining the public support necessary to build new nuclear power reactors. The industry is interested in constructing new nuclear power reactors due to growing demand for electricity and pressure from governments to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and curtail carbon emissions.
- Centralized storage at two locations provides an alternative that could be implemented within 10 to 30 years, allowing more time to consider final disposal options. However, DOE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be extremely challenging. In addition, centralized storage does not provide for final waste disposal, so much of the waste would be transported twice to reach its final destination.
- On-site storage would provide an alternative requiring little change from the status quo, but would face increasing challenges over time. The additional time in on-site storage would make waste safer to handle, reducing risks when waste is transported for final disposal. However, the government is unlikely to take custody of the waste, especially at operating nuclear reactor sites. Not taking custody could intensify public opposition to spent fuel storage site renewals and reactor license extensions, particularly with no plan in place for final waste disposition.
- Extended on-site storage could introduce possible risks to the safety and security of the waste as the storage systems degrade and the waste decays, potentially requiring new maintenance and security measures. Using cost data from experts, GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of on-site storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of 100 years to range from $13 billion to $34 billion but increasing to between $20 billion and $97 billion with final geologic disposal.
- Reprocessing nuclear waste could potentially reduce, but not eliminate, the amount of waste for disposal. In reprocessing, usable uranium and plutonium are recovered from spent nuclear fuel and are used to make new fuel rods. However, current reprocessing technologies separate weapons usable plutonium and other fissionable materials from the spent nuclear fuel, raising concerns about nuclear proliferation by terrorists.
- The consensus of the international scientific community is that geologic disposal is the preferred long-term nuclear waste management alternative. Finland, Sweden, Canada, France, and Switzerland have decided to construct geologic disposal facilities, but none have yet completed any such facility, although DOE reports that Finland and Sweden have announced plans to begin emplacement operations in 2020 and 2023, respectively.
To view the entire report online: http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/upload/20091202-gao-report-nuclear-waste...
STORAGE DEBATE
BACKGROUND:
In June 2008, the U.S. Energy Department delivered a formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the nation's first national repository for high-level radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The 8,600-page application represents a $13.5 billion taxpayer investment spanning two decades. If it is built, radioactive material stored at 80 temporary sites in 35 states -- including Savannah River Site -- would have a permanent resting place.
DEVELOPMENTS:
- On March 1, President Obama's new energy secretary, Steven Chu, announced intentions to scrap Yucca Mountain in favor of convening a panel of experts to explore other options. - In November, the SRS Community Reuse Organization released a paper calling for more conversation about what might happen next, and whether SRS will play a role in waste disposition.
- Earlier this week, a Government Accountability Office report said that two centralized storage sites could be an alternative to Yucca Mountain and that longer-term storage at existing sites could buy time until a permanent solution is found.
THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS:
- If the Yucca Mountain project is not pursued, the waste already at SRS would likely remain in South Carolina indefinitely or until alternatives are explored.
- Abolishing Yucca Mountain also leaves in limbo the fate of 70,000 metric tons of used commercial nuclear fuel stored in 35 states, including Georgia.
- One potential alternative to permanent storage is reprocessing, which extracts reusable materials from spent fuels.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2008, the U.S. Energy Department delivered a formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the nation's first national repository for high-level radioactive waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The 8,600-page application represents a $13.5 billion taxpayer investment spanning two decades. If it is built, radioactive material stored at 80 temporary sites in 35 states -- including Savannah River Site -- would have a permanent resting place.