Skip to main content

The NRC Dockets the Yucca Mountain License Application

yucca-drawing The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has formally docketed the Department of Energy’s license application for the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The agency staff has also recommended that the Commission adopt, with further supplementation, DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement for the repository project.

That comes from an NRC press release. Why is this important? Let NEI's President and CEO Skip Bowman tell you:

“This is another important step toward determining the scientific and technical basis for disposing of the radioactive byproducts (used fuel and/or other waste forms from future used fuel recycling) of the nation’s commercial and defense nuclear activities in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This progress in the Yucca Mountain licensing process demonstrates that the United States is at the forefront of international efforts to safely manage used nuclear fuel in the manner that the scientific community has recommended for decades.

and

“This determination initiates the most rigorous phase of an unprecedented licensing process that will be transparent to the public, with the state of Nevada, several affected units of local government and Indian tribes among its active participants. As the NRC undertakes its formal scientific and technical review, there will be multiple opportunities for the public to participate in and observe the process.”

The second part is key: Nevada kicked up a fuss over the impact statement, in part because the Environmental Protection Agency intends to issue new guidelines that might affect DOE's application. Nevada's complaint to the NRC was rejected, but only because the application hadn't been docketed. Now that it has, we can expect more action from Nevada. (Of course, the EPA's standards may favor what's been done in the application, which would render the issue moot.) Stay tuned.

In any event, it's an important step and allows the NRC to begin the work of reviewing the application. The staff’s report on its adoption review will be available on the NRC’s ADAMS online document system at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html using access number ML082420342.

A conceptual design of the Yucca Mountain repository. This comes from the NRC. Visit here to see a detailed description and browse around the NRC's high-level waste disposal section. Lot of Yucca Mountain information there.

Comments

Johan said…
One thing I dont understand is why not just expand the WIPP to take on civilian waste aswell? What legal obstacles are there?
Joffan said…
While I don't have any particular love for the waste disposal scheme as currently envisaged, I guess it important that the regulatory process is run through, if for no other reason than to start the wheels turning on civilian spent fuel disposal. Whatever technologies arise in future, there will likely be some desire for deep disposal and variations to the Yucca permit will hopefully be straightforward compared to the initial permit.

johan: the two obvious legal hurdles for WIPP would be its own license and Congress' declared exclusivity of Yucca as the civilian disposal site. There may be others. However, it's an excellent counter even now to the antinuclear delusion that there is no waste disposal possible.
Anonymous said…
Didn't New Mexico cut a deal long ago whereby they were taken out of the running for the full-scale SNF repository if they agreed to host WIPP? Or am I completely misrecalling?
Anonymous said…
The big difference between salt repositories (WIPP and nearby) and tuff (Yucca) is that anything that is put into salt is permanently gone, since the salt creeps down and encapsulates the material. Material put into Yucca remains easily recoverable for millenia. The obvious use for Yucca Mountain is for disposal of materials that we believe will not be economical to recycle for many decades, but that could in theory have future value (e.g., exotic spent fuels). A repository next to WIPP could be used for materials that are not expected to ever have any future value (e.g., fission products). Dry cask storage should be used for materials that we believe are likely to be recycled (e.g., spent LWR fuel).

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...