Karl Herchenroeder
RW Monitor
1/15/2016
Because the plan to develop America’s first geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain has been halted for five years, does the Department of Energy’s environmental impact statement (EIS) still apply at the site?
This was one of the questions posed Wednesday to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official who was discussing the agency’s Yucca Mountain license application review at the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management’s Spent Fuel Seminar in Washington, D.C. James Rubenstone, the NRC’s director for the Yucca Mountain Directorate, said his office anticipates parties that will want to see the (EIS) updated.
“My feeling is that if this moves forward, there may be parties who feel there needs to be updates,” Rubenstone said, adding that his views don’t represent those of the commission. “In fact, the comments we received on our (NRC) supplement (to the EIS) pointed out life changes from what was analyzed in the DOE environmental impact statement, and suggested that those need to be taken into account.”
The Department of Energy delivered its Yucca Mountain application to the NRC in 2008. The NRC conducted its own safety evaluation of the project in 2015, and is in the process of filing a supplement to the DOE EIS. The final supplement is expected in the first half of 2016, Rubenstone said, as staff is reviewing comments now.
In the application review, NRC staff ultimately found that the Yucca plan met most but not all NRC regulations, but issues remain over land ownership and water rights. The licensing process includes hearings before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which is tasked with adjudicating some 300 contentions made by a number of parties concerning technical and legal aspects of the DOE application. Hearings on the matter were suspended in 2011, when the Obama administration halted the underground repository project. Rubenstone said Wednesday that if carried out, completion of the hearings is expected to cost the NRC more than $300 million.
He cautioned that he is not suggesting that 10 CFR Part 60, which set the regulatory standards for disposal of radioactive waste at geologic repositories, needs to be updated. But in the adjudication process, he said, there are a large number of contentions against the environmental impact statement. If adjudication reopens, there’s opportunity to raise new contentions based on new information, he said, adding that National Environmental Policy Act guidelines dictate that environmental impact statements age over time.
“Has there been new and significant information?” Rubenstone asked. “Has the proposed action changed from what was analyzed previously, and then do you need to update?”
Official Discusses Yucca Railcar Progress
While disagreements remain about where to store America’s nuclear waste, there is consensus that the material cannot sit at the nation’s nuclear power plants forever.
Patrick Schwab, with the DOE’s spent fuel railcar project, discussed Wednesday how the department is working through plans to transport the material when lawmakers move forward with a disposal location. Through its ATLAS railcar project, the DOE has transportation agreements with the Union Pacific and BNSF railroad companies. The design of those railcars, which must adhere to Association of American Railroads standards, is expected to be completed in 2022, though he did not give a timeline on when the potential fleet could launch. Tentative deadlines show the U.S. establishing an interim nuclear waste storage facility by 2021 and a permanent repository by 2048.
“This does not mean that DOE thinks we’re going to have a destination in 2022,” Schwab said. “The ATLAS railcar project will have a design in 2022. It doesn’t imply anything about any destination.”
During his presentation, Schwab was asked if the department has cost estimates for the production of railcars. One thing the DOE will need to decide is whether it wants to buy the railcar fleet or contract each individual shipment. At this point, he said, the cost is unclear.
“Ask me in about a year, and I’ll have a really, really solid answer,” Schwab said. “I’ve got a deliverable coming from the contractor to answer that question, so a year from now I’m going to know exactly what their cost estimate is.”
