Waste Issue Dominates Nuclear Scene

Dec 12 - Power Engineering

National Laboratories and private industry continue to develop new and improved nuclear technologies; politicians continue to argue over support for new commercial nuclear plants; and industry groups discuss how to get the next nuclear project underway. But because of the legal wrangling that always accompanies the issue, only nuclear waste activities have much public visibility.

In what must be one of the most significant industry victories in a while, Exelon and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement of Exelon's lawsuit over waste disposal. The utility had sued after the government did not fulfill its contractual obligation to begin accepting utilities' nuclear waste in 1998. The government will now reimburse Exelon for its excess onsite spent fuel storage costs since the Department of Energy (DOE) reneged on its contract. Just as important as the reimbursement is its source: the money will not come from the nuclear waste fund, which is meant to pay for permanent disposal; it will come from the government's general fund. Thus, nuclear utilities' payments for permanent waste disposal will be used for that purpose only, and will not be used to pay for DOE's management problems. Exelon is only one of several utilities affected by the government's failure to honor its contracts, so other companies may seek similar settlements.

The legal wrangling over the Yucca Mountain waste repository continues to move at a snail's pace. A panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the federal government was well within its rights to designate Yucca Mountain as the country's high-level waste repository. In fact, on 11 of the 12 issues contested in the case, the three judges ruled against the state of Nevada's suit that attempted to block the project. The judges did rule, however, that the 10,000-year design basis for protecting people from radiation at the site was not adequate. That ruling threw a new wrench into the Yucca Mountain process and was enough for critics to claim victory.

The problem was not that the judges felt 10,000 years isn't long enough, although that was the impression left by most news stories. Specifically, the judges ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hadn't obeyed the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That law required the agency to follow the recommendations of a special panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding standards to be set for the site. In its defense the EPA notes that the NAS panel, in recommending waste isolation for as long as hundreds of thousands of years, acknowledged that it looked only at scientific issues. The panel noted that EPA should take other issues into account in setting the final standards, and that's what the agency did.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has asked the court to reconsider its ruling. NEI agrees with EPA that the agency properly applied the law in determining the 10,000-year design basis. Furthermore, the 10,000-year design basis has become standard practice in EPA regulations dealing with other hazardous waste materials - and the toxicity of those doesn't decrease over time like radiation does. In addition, the 1992 law specifically refers to a 10,000-year time period for protection from human intrusion.

The NEI appeal goes further, however, by contesting the separate groundwater standard EPA set for Yucca Mountain. According to the NEI suit, this separate standard, over and above the "all pathways" standard, provides no additional protection for the public. In this instance, NEI says, EPA is in direct violation of the 1992 law. Indeed, some of the DOE technical experts who reviewed the draft EPA standard made this same point before the standard was adopted, but EPA apparently ignored their objections.

On a related issue, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), an independent DOE advisory group, notified the agency that it was rescinding its previous note of concern about the potential for cracking of the Yucca Mountain waste canisters. According to the NWTRB letter, the Board has determined that the corrosion mechanism of concern, "deliquescence-induced crevice corrosion," can occur only at elevated temperatures and in an aqueous environment rich in calcium chloride. NWTRB says these conditions are so unlikely at Yucca Mountain as to be of no further concern.

It is interesting to note that Nevada politicians have filled their stereotypical roles with regard to Yucca Mountain. The Democrats are using every legal trick in the book to stop the repository. Some Republicans are going along with that, assuming this is the only politically safe position with local voters. Yet other Republicans are trying to figure out how the state and local governments can make a buck out of having the repository there. According to reports, the vice-chairman of the Nye County Republican Party said, "This has been going on for decades, and Nevada hasn't gotten anything out of it. It's about time we get something."

BY: JOHN C. ZINK, PH.D., P.E., CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit: http://www.energycentral.com .