Yucca Mountain And Political Will

Ever since Energy Secretary Steven Chu set about closing Yucca Mountain, Congress members have been handing DOE staff – and Chu – considerable grief for the decision at virtually every hearing since then. So the recent decision that the used fuel repository’s license application cannot be withdrawn from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems a kind of vindication, reasserting Congressional will – the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that, via a 1987 amendment, designated Yucca Mountain as the used fuel repository – over an executive decision.

Drawing the lines between branches of government is, of course, a perpetual issue in American governance, but this decision seems clear cut: the Act and its amendment were passed by Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan. Closing Yucca Mountain means overturning or further amending the Act – and no one seems eager to do either.

So if Congress does feel vindicated, why not press the point?

Some 91 members of Congress on Tuesday called on Energy Secretary Steven Chu to halt the dismantling of the high-level nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The lawmakers, 67 of whom are Republicans, told Chu in a letter that they "are deeply troubled" that the US Department of Energy is continuing to move forward with its plan to terminate the Yucca Mountain project despite recent actions by … the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

67 Republicans might feel like mischief, but those 24 Democrats provide a hefty bipartisan spirit. The Platts story notes this, but inflects it differently than we would:

All 91 lawmakers who signed the letter represent states that have nuclear power or DOE nuclear facilities with high-level defense waste stored on site.

That might make you think a fairly low number of states are represented by the letter, but in fact it includes 35 states. It’s hard to suggest a Congressperson represents a “nuclear state.” When you include businesses that provide materials and services for nuclear power plants (for example, New Mexico’s new uranium enrichment plant), every state is a nuclear state, one way or another.

---

Here’s the text of the letter:

Dear Secretary Chu:

We write today to request that the Department of Energy immediately halt all actions to dismantle operations at Yucca Mountain at least until legal action regarding the withdrawal of the application is resolved by the DC Circuit Court and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The DC Circuit Court has taken the important step of approving the motion to expedite legal actions and has combined the cases involving the State of Washington, State of South Carolina, Aiken County, and Tri-Cities, Washington community leaders. This is a clear demonstration by the Court that the merits of the case must be heard and ruled upon prior to further action by the Department of Energy to shut down Yucca Mountain.

On June 29, 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied the Department's motion to withdraw its license application for Yucca Mountain, a clear statement that the Department does not have the authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to unilaterally terminate Yucca Mountain.

In light of the recent legal and regulatory actions, we are deeply troubled that the Department continues to move forward with terminating the project regardless of this decision. We are also concerned that the Department is using its budget proposal in an attempt to justify the termination of Yucca Mountain.

As you know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act designated Yucca Mountain as the only candidate site for the national repository. Congressional intent is clear - Congress has voted several times to retain Yucca Mountain as the national repository. We are deeply disappointed that DOE has overstepped its bounds and has ignored congressional intent without peer review or proper scientific documentation in its actions regarding Yucca Mountain.

We ask that you recognize the letter and spirit of the law, honor the timeline set by the court, and halt all efforts to reprogram funds or terminate contracts related to Yucca Mountain.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely, etc.

You can find a complete list of the signatories and a pdf copy of the letter here. This is Sen. Patty Murray’s (D-Wash.) site. She and Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) initiated the letter.

Rep. Doc Hastings rather surprisingly shaves off his beard regularly and equally regularly grows it back – not standard “brand” management, but perhaps Hasting doesn’t need it or care - the beard somehow seems right for a man named Doc.

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog