Western states must be given a say in any decisions to establish an interim storage facility for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel within their borders, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) said in a new policy resolution this week.
“In the event that centralized interim storage, either private or federal, is deemed necessary, no such facility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be located within the geographic boundaries of a Western state or U.S. flag island without the written consent of the Governor in whose state or territory the facility is to be located,” says the document, an updated version of an existing resolution.
The organization representing governors of 19 Western states and 3 U.S. flag islands set out a number of additional demands in the document approved during its winter meeting in San Diego. These include keeping all commercial spent fuel stockpiles at their current locations at nuclear reactor sites until several requirements are met, including the opening (or at least a successful independent review) of one or more disposal facilities.
The governors expressed concerns about the potential adverse impacts on their states from the transport and disposal of radioactive wastes produced by government and commercial activities. Their top concerns, according to a WGA statement Friday to RadWaste Monitor, include adequate safety and security of high-level waste and spent fuel during transport, and ensuring emergency responders are alerted to and prepared for shipments – “basically, ensuring that [Department of Transportation and Nuclear Regulatory Commission] regulations are being properly followed.” For storage, the WGA wants assurance that construction and operation of facilities are conducted in compliance with NRC standards.
After canceling the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, which would have held both commercial and defense nuclear waste, the Obama administration’s Department of Energy has pursued a consent-based program that calls for separate storage sites for the two waste streams.
Roughly 75,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are already stored on-site at nuclear facilities in 40 states, the resolution notes, with over 80 percent of it produced east of the 100th meridian – the longitude line that essentially splits the United States. More than 2,000 metric tons more spent fuel is produced annually, but a permanent geologic repository is not expected until 2048 under the Obama administration’s nuclear waste storage plan.
Meanwhile, the administration hopes that interim facilities will open in the mid-2020s to begin consolidating the spent fuel. Waste Control Specialists has already submitted a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a site in West Texas, and Holtec is expected to deliver its application for a New Mexico facility in March.
Beyond commercial waste, high-level wastes from nuclear weapons production and naval nuclear power operations also must have a final resting place, the WGA policy document says, also acknowledging the need for final disposition of U.S. excess nuclear weapon-usable plutonium and uranium. Much of these wastes are already stored temporarily in western states such as California, Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington, the governors said.
The Department of Energy is preparing to release a draft plan for a defense-only waste site, a DOE official said last week at a meeting of the Savannah River Site Citizens Advisory Board in South Carolina.
The Department of Energy’s list of seven potential locations for disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) low-level waste and GTCC-Like Waste includes six sites in the West, the governors noted. Much of the waste would come from the east, creating risks for western states during transport of the material.
The department’s final environmental impact statement on disposition of GTCC waste lays out a preferred option to use the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico for storage. That would require updating the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act to enable the facility to store non-defense waste.
Among the Western Governors’ Association’s additional policy demands:
- Plans for disposition of GTCC and high-level waste, as well as spent nuclear fuel, “must be viewed as being part of an integrated program that considers all aspects of necessary operation and intergovernmental considerations.” The location selection process must consider transport and logistics as key components of siting, rather than as an “afterthought.”
- The governors back consideration of alternatives for waste acceptance, such as paying utilities to enhance their on-site storage of spent fuel. However, “The search for alternatives must not detract from the imperative to develop a permanent solution to the management and disposition of SNF.”
- The NRC and DOE should collaborate with state governments to “ensure safe management, transportation, storage, and disposal of spent fuel and HLW.”
- Interim storage of spent fuel is necessary only because the federal government failed to meet its mandate under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act to begin accepting the material for storage by January 1998. That makes it the federal government’s responsibility to sufficiently prepare fuel for shipment to interim sites, work with the states on these operations, and reimburse the states for any associated costs via the federal Nuclear Waste Fund.
- The authority of regional low-level waste compacts must be taken into account in any move to select a facility for disposal of GTCC and GTCC-like waste. Such activities must also be in line with applicable compacts and NRC rules for certification to accept commercially generated waste.
The governors directed WGA staff to work with relevant congressional committees, the executive branch, and other organizations to carry out the goals laid out in the policy document.
“States should be consulted with and engaged in any discussion involving HLW transportation, storage, disposal or disposition that occurs within their borders,” the WGA said Friday. “Western states will be monitoring any legislation that could affect this dynamic and work to ensure that state concerns are addressed.”
The Department of Energy did not respond by deadline to a request for comment on the governors’ demands.
