Land Ownership and Water Rights Still Needed
Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
12/19/2014
The Yucca Mountain license application meets most administrative and programmatic requirements, except land ownership and water rights, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Safety Evaluation Report Volume Four released this week. The conclusions only bolstered both pro-Yucca support that gained momentum in October following the release of SER Volume Three, which said that the Yucca Mountain design met NRC regulatory requirements for post-closure, as well as those against Yucca Mountain. Volume Four examined administrative and programmatic requirements outlined in the license application, including plans for quality assurance programs, research and development programs to resolve safety questions, qualifications and training programs, and emergency planning, among other administrative areas.
The Yucca Mountain license application met most areas, the report said, except for two: requirements relating to ownership of land and water rights. According to NRC spokesman David McIntyre, the ownership issue has potential pitfalls that derailed a part of Volume Four. “Specifically, DOE has not acquired ownership or jurisdiction over the land where the geologic repository operations area would be located, and the land is not free of significant encumbrances such as mining rights, deeds, rights-of-way or other legal rights,” McIntyre said. “DOE also has not acquired water rights it determined are needed to accomplish the purpose of the geologic repository operations area.”
According to the report’s conclusions, “In particular, SER Volume 4 documents the results of the NRC staff’s evaluation to determine whether DOE’s research and development program, performance confirmation program, and other programmatic and administrative controls, systems, and programs meet applicable regulatory requirements. Based on its review, the NRC staff finds, with reasonable assurance, that, except as noted below, DOE has addressed applicable requirements including 10 CFR 63.21, “Content of Application”; 10 CFR 63.121, “Land Ownership and Control”; 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart D, “Records, Reports, Tests, and Inspections”; 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F, “Performance Confirmation Program”; 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart G, “Quality Assurance”; 10 CFR Part 63,Subpart H, “Training and Certification of Personnel”; and 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart I, “Emergency Planning Criteria.” The report also added that “The NRC staff finds that DOE has not met the requirements 10 CFR 63.121(a) and 10 CFR 63.121(d)(1) regarding ownership of land and water rights, respectively.”
Volumes Two and Five Expected Next Month
The remaining volumes, Two and Five, still need to be finalized, and are expected to be released next month. Following the NRC order re-starting the Yucca Mountain license review, the NRC has maintained that all volumes of the SER would be released by January 2015. Volume Three, released in October, said that the Yucca Mountain design met regulatory requirements for post-closure safety. However, the project remains shut down for the foreseeable future, and did not receive any funding in the Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations bill recently approved by Congress.
Reid: Water and Land One of Yucca’s “Major Weaknesses”
The Senate’s upcoming Minority Leader and long-time Yucca opponent Harry Reid (D-Nev.) focused on the ownership and water rights problem as a ‘major weakness’ in the Yucca argument. Reid was instrumental in Yucca’s collapse in 2010 when the Department of Energy deemed the site unworkable. “The latest study released by the NRC acknowledges one of the major weaknesses of the effort to resurrect Yucca Mountain: the federal government does not have the water it needs nor control of the land necessary to build a nuclear waste dump in Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “The State of Nevada long ago refused to grant the federal government water rights necessary for the Yucca Mountain project. Additionally, a federal Court blocked the Bush Administration’s Energy Department’s efforts to do an ‘end-run’ to force Nevada to turn the state’s water over to the federal government over its strong objections.” Reid added, “This is just one reason why the Yucca Mountain project will never be built and Congress should instead focus on consent-based solutions that don’t shove nuclear waste down a community’s throat over the objections of its people.”
Alexander: “Yet More Evidence” of Yucca Suitability
Meanwhile, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who will most likely Chair the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee in the upcoming Congress, took the opposite viewpoint. “Today’s report is yet more evidence that we need to move forward with Yucca Mountain, and that to stall because of safety concerns would be to ignore science,” Alexander said in a statement. “This report confirms that the Department of Energy’s management plan for Yucca Mountain meets all of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s requirements for the right programs and people to oversee the safe storage of used fuel from nuclear reactors. I will continue to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure it completes its review of Yucca Mountain’s license application so nuclear power can continue to be a source of clean, cheap, and reliable electricity in the United States.”
Publication Does Not Constitute a Decision, NRC Says
As it has said in the past, the NRC maintained that the publication of Vol. 4, or any other volumes, does not constitute a final decision on Yucca Mountain. “Publication of the various volumes does not signal whether the NRC might authorize construction of the repository,” McIntyre said. “A final licensing decision, should funds beyond those currently available be appropriated, could come only after completion of the safety evaluation report, a supplement to the Department of Energy’s environmental impact statement, hearings on contentions in the adjudication, and Commission review.”