Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
12/12/2014
Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz assured the state of Nevada that Yucca Mountain remains an ‘unworkable solution’ to the nation’s nuclear waste problem during the Western Governors’ Association meeting Dec. 6 and 7. Nevada has long opposed hosting the nation’s waste repository in its state, as evident by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval’s assurance of funds for the Attorney General’s Office and Office of Nuclear Projects’ planned defense against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca licensing, set for release in January. Moniz and Sandoval issued a joint statement following their recent meeting. “Secretary Moniz also reaffirmed to Governor Sandoval that the position of the Department under this Administration has been unwavering – Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution,” the joint statement said. “That has not, and will not change. The Department firmly believes in a consent-based process as a prerequisite for long-term success.”
The Obama Administration shuttered the Yucca Mountain project in 2010 after deeming the site ‘unworkable.’ In its place, DOE adopted a waste management strategy that called for consolidated storage by 2021 and the construction of a consent-based repository by 2048. DOE’s efforts to implement some of the major strategies outlined in its “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste” are limited due to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act’s strict adherence to only allowing movement towards Yucca Mountain for the disposal of commercial high-level waste. The Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations Omnibus bill, however, does not include any funding for DOE to begin implementing its strategy.
Problem Isn’t Technical, It’s the Lack of Consent, Lyons Says
According to DOE’s Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons, the problem with the Yucca Mountain site does not lay in its technical suitability, rather it is the lack of consent from Nevada that shuttered the project, he said during remarks before the House Energy Subcommittee this week. When asked about the findings from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s recently released Safety Evaluation Report Volume Three, which said that the repository design adequately addresses NRC regulatory requirements for post-closure out to a million years, Lyons said it did not come as a surprise. “The fact that the SER Volume Three stated the safety for post closure standpoint for Yucca Mountain was not a surprise for the Department,” Lyons said. “We submitted our application for Yucca Mountain in 2008, but that doesn’t change that the fact that we believe strongly that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution.” Lyons added to reporters after his appearance, “Vol. Three said exactly what we expected it to say. We submitted the application in 2008. We submitted that application because we felt that technically it was ok. That’s very different from saying it’s a workable solution.”
Lyons indicated in his appearance before the Energy Subcommittee that consent never existed in Nevada. “I think consent-based means completely the opposite of the Yucca Mountain,” Lyons said. “I grew up in Nevada. I worked in Nevada. I worked at the test site, worked with Yucca Mountain, directed the research on Yucca Mountain. I know it very well, but also I am well aware that the 1987 amendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is viewed as the ‘Screw Nevada bill.’ There was never a consent basis in Nevada for Yucca Mountain, and it has led to be a polarizing issue.” Lyons also said that there are communities and some states that have reached out to the Department to express their interest in participating in a consent-based approach to siting a repository.
Defense Waste Repository Wouldn’t Need Congressional Authorization
Elsewhere this week, Lyons spoke on the issue of de-commingling and the recent report issued by the Office of Nuclear Energy. Should the Obama Administration choose to enact the Department of Energy’s recommendation to de-commingle defense high-level nuclear waste and commercial nuclear waste into two repositories, DOE would not need congressional authorization to implement and site a location for defense waste, Lyons said this week at a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee. DOE, however, would need funding to implement the defense repository through congressional appropriations, Lyons said. “The DOE has the authority to do this, but they do not have funding to do it,” Lyons said. “It would have to be appropriated, but there is no additional requirement for authorization.”
Because President Ronald Reagan made an executive decision in 1985 that allowed defense and commercial waste to be disposed of in a single repository, President Obama can remove that restriction without Congressional approval. Both types of material had been planned to be disposed of together in the now shuttered Yucca Mountain geological waste repository, but by separating the two DOE would not be limited by the parameters of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and have more flexibility in design and implementation.
During his remarks, Lyons emphasized that this was only a recommendation under consideration, not an active strategy. In October, DOE released its report on co-mingling, which recommended two disposal pathways for defense and commercial waste. In its conclusions, the report said that DOE-managed high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel should be disposed of first due to the fewer challenges they pose, resulting in a simpler repository design and licensing processes. That move would also build confidence in DOE’s ability to dispose of waste and meet its environmental management goals. Lyons also said this week that the defense waste was much cooler and limited in comparison to commercial waste, making disposal more predictable. “In the document, we spent considerable time talking about what has changed since 1985,” Lyons said. “There is a lot that has changed. Between now and 1985, probably the biggest change is that the Cold War has stopped, so we are no longer producing weapons, and therefore, the amount of defense-level waste is not increasing and is precisely known as a finite number.”
