Language referring to the availability of a repository "when needed" within the Waste Confidence rulemaking may change or be deleted altogether when the final ruling comes out, said Andy Imboden from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards during a Commission meeting Friday on the status of the Waste Confidence review. The language within the rule that a repository would be available when needed drew the ire of many during the public comment period, with many citing the federal government’s failure to move Yucca Mountain forward as evidence to a lack of confidence in the government’s ability to site a repository. “At this time, in the current state of the directorate’s review, we believe that removing a specific policy statement regarding the timeline for repository availability from the role text may be warranted,” Imboden said. “This is mainly because it is not within the NRC’s responsibility or control to define when a repository might become available.”
Imboden also mentioned that the Waste Confidence rulemaking might adopt a new name as a way to more accurately reflect what the rulemaking accomplishes. Whereas previous Waste Confidence decisions were based on policy statements, this new rulemaking revolves around an environmental impact study, so the Waste Confidence name would be outdated. “At this point in our review, the staff believes the title of the rule warrants change,” Imboden said. “The staff does not make a specific recommendation for the new title right now, but as we move forward, we will be recommending a title change that accurately reflects what the rule does.”
The NRC’s proposed waste confidence ruling, released in June, found that spent fuel can be stored on site for 60 years past a reactor’s licensed life. When the NRC first issued a revised waste confidence rule in 2010, the Commission extended the length of time assumed to be safe for storage of spent fuel at a reactor site from 30 to 60 years. Last year, though, a federal court found the NRC’s rule deficient and mandated an updated version, along with an environmental impact statement. Because of adjudicatory matters before the Commission regarding the Waste Confidence rulemaking, the commissioners during the Commission meeting could not endorse the process or ask probing questions into the rulemaking, leaving the potential Commission direction to the staff unclear at this point.
