Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief

While Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici's legislation wants the federal government to take control over nuclear waste, his bill's future is far from certain. The measure wants to open up Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles away from Las Vegas, by 2011 to defense-related nuclear waste and by 2017 to commercially-related spent fuel from utilities. All of it would eventually be stored underground there.

Under the bill, defense waste can be shipped to Yucca after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves an above-ground storage facility. That is estimated to occur by 2010, making it possible that the spent fuel could be stored within concrete walls about a year later. At the same time, the U.S. Secretary of Energy could decide what waste would qualify to be re-processed, or recycled -- all as a way to lessen the level of waste sent to the repository. The fuel that cannot be recycled would be stored at Yucca.

"This bill will remove legal barriers that will allow the (Department of Energy) to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible," says Domenici, in a floor speech. The measure gives the Energy Department the authority to create 147,000 acres of land as a buffer zone around Yucca. It would also fund a rail system to transport waste from 131 sites around the country.

Current law enacted in 1982 permits 70,000 tons of spent fuel to be housed at Yucca. But, Domenici says that the threshold is too little and the limit would be quickly reached -- if the site becomes a permanent storage facility. For example, about 54,000 tons of both commercial and defense-related waste now awaits permanent storage But, the Energy Department says those entities could generate 119,000 tons of spent fuel by 2035.

The pending measure deviates from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, allowing the Energy Department to circumvent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that must approve the Yucca Mountain application. If the bill would pass, the Energy Department could move the spent fuel to the site before the nuclear agency gives its permission -- something that has been repeatedly pushed back and is not expected now until 2008.

Until Yucca Mountain would become workable, the bill would allow for the creation of interim storage facilities in several states -- something opposed by 10 state attorney generals. "The proposal does not contain even basic measures to address the major transportation-safety issues entailed in moving nuclear waste, such as emergency-response preparation, accident prevention, security and public education," says the coalition of attorneys general, in a letter to Chairman Domenici.

On-Site Storage

Critics of Domenici's latest efforts say that it is an attempt by federal officials to bypass the current set of requirements. If the measure were to become law, they have vowed to challenge it in the courts. Opponents have always maintained that Yucca poses serious environmental and safety concerns and argue that the best solution to storing nuclear waste is to keep it on site and in underground storage near the reactors that generate it.

Public Citizen, the Union for Concerned Scientists and many others told a House subcommittee that highly reinforced dry casks is the appropriate place to put spent nuclear fuel. Moreover, Yucca Mountain is a poor solution and would not obviate the need for on site storage, they say. Some members of Congress want the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue rules requiring permanent on-site, underground storage at each of the nation's 103 nuclear power plants.

Yucca Mountain "is not a site that can be licensed given reasonable standards for health and public safety," said Michele Boyd, legislative counsel with Public Citizen. She says that the ongoing effort to create a permanent nuclear waste site there has cost $10 billion over the last 20 years.

The issue of storing spent nuclear fuel is probably the most pressing one facing the nuclear power industry. While proponents have done a reasonably good job of letting the public know that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly, they have yet to persuade all parties that the generation and storage processes are totally safe. And, if federal incentives are successful and more nuclear power generation is built, then the federal government would likely need to create more permanent storage facilities beyond what Yucca Mountain has to offer.

An MIT study says that existing nuclear storage sites should be expanded to enable the storage of spent fuel decades into the future. At some point, the technology to allow that fuel to be recycled will have advanced. Instead of burying it all, some of the spent fuel could then be used to power other nuclear generators.

Other countries, meantime, are grappling with similar issues. France, for example, now reprocesses its waste and uses it in other reactors. The country also buries it underground in storage at two sites there and in ventilated wells to control the temperature. An underground research laboratory in eastern France is now researching more effective ways to bury such waste.

In the United States, leading lawmakers are insistent that Yucca Mountain is the best long-term solution when it comes to storing spent fuel. They are working to remove the legal barriers to allow for such a permanent repository. Opponents are determined to prevent it. As such, the more immediate question may be whether underground, on-site storage is the most optimal answer to the problem.

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

Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.