New Pakistan and China Nuclear Power Plant Deal

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday ceremonially broke ground on a $9.59 billion 2,200-megawatt nuclear power complex to be built in Karachi with China’s help.  Pakistan is seeking to ease it’s long-running energy crisis and is signaling that China will be its top nuclear supplier.

 

The deal dwarfs previous reactor projects built along with China at Chashma, in Pakistan’s interior. And it establishes a growing counterpoint to a nuclear axis between the United States and India in recent years that Pakistani officials have seen as an irritant and Chinese officials have seen as a geopolitical challenge.

      

Construction is to be completed in six years according to the Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, and officials from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission attended.

      

Officials said the new project is to be built around two new-model Chinese ACP-1000 nuclear reactors, with China also providing enriched uranium for fuel.

      

In September, the International Monetary Fund approved a $6.6 billion loan to help stabilize Pakistan’s struggling economy and tackle the energy crisis.

      

The new project is not without potential controversy. In the years since China and Pakistan agreed to build the first reactor at Chashma, China has joined both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an agreement by 47 countries to limit exports of nuclear technology and materials. China is almost certain to deem the new projects as a “grandfathered” extension of the countries’ earlier nuclear deals signed before China joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group. (NYTimes, 11/26/2013)

Government Shutdown Delays Nuclear Power Plant Approvals

Spent Fuel in Dry Casks

Nuclear power plant licensing decisions -- already delayed by a 2012 court ruling -- could be pushed back further by the federal government shutdown.  The NRC will have to reschedule a series of meetings that kicked off this week on a proposed new “waste confidence” rule that is meant to address the ruling. 

Most of the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, the start of fiscal 2014, because Democrats and Republicans in Congress cannot agree on a temporary funding bill. Democrats are rejecting GOP attempts include in the budget a repeal of the health-care reform law Congress approved in 2010.

Last year, a federal appeals court sided with the states of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont, which argued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrongly assumed spent reactor fuel eventually would move to a permanent waste repository, even though the Obama administration canceled the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.

The court ruled in New York v. NRC that the commission must examine the potential consequences of fires in spent fuel pools -- where much of the waste currently is stored. Critics have argued the pools are vulnerable to terrorist attacks given that they are located outside reactors’ containment structures, and in some cases in an elevated area they claim is more susceptible to air attacks.

In response to the ruling, the commission on Sept. 13 proposed a new “waste confidence” rule that it claims addresses the court’s concerns. Between now and Nov. 27, NRC staff planned to collect public comments on the new proposal, including by hosting a series of public meetings throughout the country.

Many of the meetings will have to be rescheduled. As a result, the public-comment deadline, and consequently the commission’s final decision on the matter, also could be pushed back. Prior to the shutdown, the decision was expected by September 2014.

The commission has already directed its staff not to issue any final decisions pertaining to the relicensing of existing plants or approval of proposed new facilities until the waste-confidence issue is resolved.

Meanwhile, the commission’s approach to addressing the 2012 court ruling is under fire. In May, the same group of states that prevailed in the case filed a petition with the commission arguing that the scope of the new review of the impacts of leaving the waste at plant sites is not as broad as the court mandated.

The petition said NRC staff refused to consider the possibility of forbidding the creation of more waste until a repository is constructed -- an option the states said the court “explicitly recognized to be reasonable.” Commission staff also declined to look at the potential for requiring plant operators to move spent fuel that has already been cooling in pools for more than five years into dry cask storage units that the states argue are more secure.

The commission in July decided to continue the rulemaking proceedings and not respond to the states’ petition in a separate forum.

Opponents are not questioning whether a permanent repository was technically feasible, but are arguing the commission in the proposed rule does not address whether it is politically realistic given the history of the Yucca Mountain project.  (NextGov)

NRC, DOE to Headline Yucca Discussion at House Energy

The House Energy & Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy will hold a hearing on September 10th at 10:00 a.m. looking at next steps on implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

The hearing comes after the August 13 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must resume its consideration of the Department of Energy's license application for Yucca Mountain.

Officials from both NRC and DOE previously committed to complying with the court's decision during testimony before the subcommittee. Committee leaders have expressed that the first order of compliance should be for NRC to complete the Safety Evaluation Report on Yucca Mountain and release it publicly.

Witnesses will include NRC Chair Allison Macfarlane and DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons.

Decommissioning Closed Nuclear Power Plants

A Big New Market For Nuclear Trash Men

More than 50 years into the age of nuclear energy, one of the biggest growth opportunities may be junking old reactors. The physical work involved in tearing down a nuclear plant takes about 10 years, according to John Hickman, a project manager in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission’s decommissioning branch.  Companies that specialize in razing nuclear plants and hauling away radioactive waste are poised to benefit.

Disposal work is where companies are going to make their fortune. Contractors that are usually involved in building reactors, including Bechtel Group Inc. and URS Corp (URS), are going to be looking very hard at the decommissioning side of it.  Razing a plant is tricky business. Radiation can seep into the concrete, pipes and metal of plant structures, and workers need to be able to break down the units without exposing themselves, or the public, to contamination. Plants often sit idle for decades before being torn down in order to let radioactive material decay.

Entergy Corp. said Aug. 27 it will close its 41-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in 2014, making the reactor the fifth unit in the U.S. marked for decommissioning within the past 12 months, a record annual total.  With Dominion Resources Inc, Duke Energy Corp and Edison International shuttering reactors this year -- and Exelon Corp is planning to close its Oyster Creek plant in 2019 -- the U.S. nuclear fleet of 104 units is shrinking, even as Southern Company and SCANA Corp. build two units each. The reasons vary: Edison and Duke are permanently removing damaged plants from service. Entergy and Dominion are retiring the units because of factors including a glut of natural gas, a competing fuel.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission gives reactor owners 60 years to complete decommissioning, which it defines as permanently removing a plant from service and reducing radioactivity enough for the property to be used for another purpose. The NRC is now overseeing 14 commercial reactors that are in some phase of decommissioning, excluding those marked for closure in the last year.

The first plant to deliver commercial power in the U.S. was a General Electric Co.-designed unit near Fremont, California, which began service in 1957, according to the NRC. It was also the first unit to be decommissioned, in 1963.

The whole objective of decontamination is to get the dose levels as low as possible so you can do the dismantlement work. During a reactor decommissioning, the plant operator transfers radioactive fuel rods to cooling pools and, ultimately, to so-called dry casks for storage. Workers clean contaminated surfaces by sandblasting, chemical sprays and hydrolasing, a process that involves high-pressure water blasts. You do get to a point that you need someone to come in who has the equipment and the technology to actually dismantle the components. That typically is hired out.

When such work begins at a plant, it can create business for companies including EnergySolutions Inc. of Salt Lake City and Waste Control Specialists LLC of Dallas, both closely held, and US Ecology Inc of Boise, Idaho. The companies dispose of low-level radioactive waste, including components and buildings at nuclear power plants.

The work doesn’t include removing the 65,000 tons of radioactive fuel that are now

stored at about 75 operating and closed reactor sites across the country. The fuel will probably remain on site until lawmakers establish a plan for temporary or permanent disposal. House Republicans have said the U.S. should resume its work on the Yucca Mountain repository, a move that President Barack Obama’s administration and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, oppose.

There’s a great opportunity for WCS in the decommissioning of nuclear-power plants. The company last year opened a West Texas facility where parts of nuclear-plant buildings and reactor components are sent for burial in steel and concrete containers 120 feet underground. WCS expects to begin taking some of the material from Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant, at Vernon, Vermont, once the utility begins dismantling it, due to an agreement between Texas and Vermont for waste disposal.

Chicago-based Exelon in 2010 transferred the license for its Zion plant to EnergySolutions, a nuclear-services company that operates low-level disposal sites in Clive, Utah, and Barnwell, South Carolina. The two-reactor plant, about 50 miles north of Chicago, had been closed since 1997. When EnergySolutions completes the $1 billion, 10-year dismantling and disposal process, it will transfer the license back to Exelon, according to the utility.

EnergySolutions later this year will begin the process of transferring spent fuel to a storage area at the Zion facility. Knocking down structures will begin later.
EnergySolutions doesn’t have contracts in place to work on reactors that have been slated for decommissioning.  They do hope there’s opportunity there.

Waste Control Specialists is doing some of the decommissioning work at Zion.  It is hard for new companies to get into the business. The regulatory framework in this arena is so lengthy, it’s going to take a long time for somebody to be up and running to dispose of this type of waste. Larger contractors that have experience in the area also are watching the plant closures closely.

Bechtel has considerable experience in nuclear decontamination and decommissioning. They are closely monitoring opportunities in the commercial sector and plan to be a major player as the market evolves.

US Ecology’s low-level waste disposal site southeast of Boise, Idaho, is disposing of the lowest level of waste from plants including PG&E Corp’s Humboldt Bay reactor.
The Humboldt Bay plant, near Eureka, California, has been out of service since 1976. Workers have been dismantling the unit since 2008. Trucks may haul away 50 loads of material, including concrete and steel, each week for four to five years.

The length of time to decommission a reactor creates uncertainty surrounding plant oversight. Is Entergy going to be around in 50 years time? In 10 years time?  The industry is entering a new era for the companies that handle reactor decommissioning. (Bloomberg, 9/4/2013)

Waste Confidence Draft EIS

A Message from the Nuclear Regulatory Commisstion's Waste Confidence Directorate

Greetings,

The Waste Confidence Directorate has two items we would like to share with you. The Waste Confidence Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) is publicly available at http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1322/ML13224A106.pdf. The document is also available in ADAMS under ML13224A106.

On Friday, September 13, three Federal Register notices will be published:

The proposed Waste Confidence rule;

The NRC’s Notice of Availability of the DGEIS; and

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability of the DGEIS. 

Next Friday you will receive another e-mail to announce the start of the public comment period. This email will also provide direct links to all three of these Federal Register notices, as well as detailed information on how you can submit your comments on the DGEIS and the proposed Waste Confidence rule.

The 75-day public comment period on the DGEIS and proposed rule will begin on Friday, September 13, and end on Wednesday, November 27. Even though the DGEIS is publicly available now, please wait to submit any comments on the document until the comment period starts on September 13.

Today the NRC published a Federal Register notice announcing the details of our upcoming twelve public meetings. Earlier this week you should have received an e-mail from WCOutreach@nrc.gov summarizing the information in this notice, including how to register for the meetings. Meeting details and registration instructions are also available on the Waste Confidence Public Involvement webpage. 
  Additionally, we have finalized the details for our Chicago meeting:

 

Thursday, October 24

Oak Brook, Illinois Chicago Marriott Oak Brook 1401 West 22nd Street Oak Brook, IL 60523

Open House 6:00-7:00 p.m. CDT Meeting 7:00-10:00 p.m. CDT

 

If you are unable to submit comments during a meeting or if you want to supplement or provide additional comments after a meeting, the NRC will accept written comments from any member of the public, including participants at the public meetings. The procedures for submitting comments will be detailed in the upcoming Federal Register notices that announce the availability of the documents and the start of the public comment period. Please note that written comments and comments submitted on the record at the public meetings will be treated equally as the NRC develops the final GEIS and rule.

 

If you have any questions about the issuance of the DGEIS, the upcoming Federal Register notices, or the public meetings, please call Sarah Lopas at (301) 287-0675 or e-mail her. To register for any of the public meetings, please see the instructions. 

 

Thank you,

Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Waste Confidence Directorate

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant To Close By End of 2014

Vermont Yankee

Vermont’s only nuclear power plant will shut down by the end of next year, Entergy announced Tuesday.  The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station is expected to cease power production after its current fuel cycle and will begin being decommissioned in the fourth quarter of 2014. The station will remain under the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission throughout the decommissioning process.

Leo Denault, Entergy’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement:

“Vermont Yankee has an immensely talented, dedicated and loyal workforce, and a solid base of support among many in the community. We recognize that closing the plant on this schedule was not the outcome they had hoped for, but we have reluctantly concluded that it is the appropriate action for us to take under the circumstances.
When it closes, the plant will be placed in 'safe-store,' in which federal regulations allow it to be mothballed for up to 60 years while its radioactive components cool down before removal."

The New Orleans-based company has been battling with the state since 2010, when the Vermont Senate voted against a measure that would have authorized a state board to grant Vermont Yankee a permit to operate for an additional 20 years. Lawmakers were concerned about the plant’s safety and age, and misstatements by plant management about components at the reactor.  (Wash Post, 8/27/2013)

S. 1240: Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2013

Sponsor: Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

S. 1240, the Nuclearr Waste Administration Act of 2013 ia a bill [text] to establish a

Ron Wyden

new organization to manage nuclear waste, provide a consensual process for siting nuclear waste facilities, ensure adequate funding for managing nuclear waste, and for other purposes.

The NFRC was the first group to recommend a nuclear waste management agency outside of the Department of Energy. (Gov Track)

 

Above ground dry cask storage

NUCLEAR FUELS REPROCESSING COALITION

May 23, 2013

The Honorable Ron Wyden                              The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

Chairman                                                           Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources                   
United States Senate                                         
Washington, DC 20510                                    

Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski:

Having reviewed the Nuclear Waste Bill Section-by-Section Summary of Discussion Draft, April 2013, I was disappointed to learn that comments are being solicited on [bracketed] provisions only.  I believe more of the bill deserves to be reviewed by all concerned parties and commented on.

I do not favor the principal officers to the Nuclear Waste Administration being appointed by the same President who terminated the Yucca Mountain Project.  I do not favor a Nuclear Waste Oversight Board being composed solely of the Deputy Director of OMB, the Chief Engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Deputy Secretary of Energy.  For that matter, because of the ongoing political reluctance to resolve our nation’s nuclear waste dilemma, this proposal is not intended to be successful if implemented.

For over 16 years I have proposed the creation of an autonomous federal agency led by a Board of Governors comprised of representatives from various public and private stakeholders, with an Executive Director selected by the Board.  The Executive Director will be accountable to the Board, and will also serve as the Board Chair.  This arrangement would promote greater stability in the executive ranks in order to ensure the organization’s success.

With renewable energy sources such as wind and solar being too unreliable to satisfy baseload electrical demands, combined with a significant reduction in the number of coal-fired power plants, and mounting problems with the distribution and pricing of natural gas, nuclear power will take on an even greater role in satisfying our demands for electricity.  If that is so, then we need an efficient organization to manage spent nuclear fuel, not one that is doomed to failure.

I have enclosed a copy of the proposed Nuclear Waste Management Agency Act of 2013 that I wrote so you can compare my bill with the one you are promoting.  Also, feel free to follow the nuclear waste discussions on our group’s site on LinkedIn.

Respectfully,

Clinton E. Crackel

Clinton E. Crackel

Co-Founder and Co-Chairman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC  20006  443-569-5102

James Hansen: 1.84 Million Lives Saved By Nuclear Power

A landmark study has put the figure of 1.84 million on the number of lives saved by the worldwide use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels. The report presents a dramatic new case for nuclear energy.

Entitled Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power, it was published as a 'just accepted' peer-reviewed paper in Environmental Science & Technology on 15 March.  It begins by taking historic generation data from the nuclear sector and estimating emissions from fossil fuels that would likely have met the same generation role if nuclear had not been used. Nuclear plants with poorer performance below 65% capacity factor were swapped for gas generation while higher performers were swapped for coal, which worked out as a mix of 95% coal and 5% gas replacing nuclear.

"In Germany, which has announced plans to shut down all reactors by 2022, we calculate that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117,000 deaths from 1971-2009"
 

James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha
 

 

The results are projected total emissions that would have probably led to the deaths of 1.84 million people between 1971 and 2009 based on average mortality estimates from fossil combustion pollution. This is probably an underestimate, said Hansen and co-author Pushker Kharecha, noting that the life-cycle mortality estimates are the biggest source of uncertainty in the report: Some coal units produce three times more dangerous pollution than the average they have used. The higher estimate for lives saved by nuclear energy was over 7.5 million - and these figures do not count a range of serious respiratory illnesses, cancers, hereditary effects and heart problems.

In the recent time period of 2000-9 nuclear power plants avoided pollution which would otherwise have caused around 76,000 deaths per year, said the report. (World Nuclear News)

EPA Updating Radiation Protective Action Guides

EPA is seeking public comment on a proposed revision of the current PAG Manual: The update, titled “PAG Manual: Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” includes new science, expands the document relevancy to more than just nuclear power plants and incorporates recent guidance on re-entry, cleanup and waste disposal.

• Federal Register notice of availability (PDF) (12 pp, 96.0 MB, pre-publication, signed April 5, 2013)
• Draft PAG Manual for Interim Use and Public Comment (PDF)(86 pp, 842.86KB, pre-publication, March 2013)
• About the Proposed Revisions

In the event of a radiological emergency, responders can instruct the public to take protective actions such as staying indoors to prevent exposure to unhealthy amounts of radiation. EPA developed a manual of Protective Action Guides to help responders plan for radiation emergencies.

• Updates to the PAG Manual
• Protective Action Guides (PAGs)
• About the PAG Manual
• Training
• Other Radiation Response Guidance

Protective Action Guides (PAGs) suggest precautions that state and local authorities can take during an emergency to keep people from receiving an amount of radiation that might be dangerous to their health. EPA developed the PAG Manual to provide guidance on actions to protect the public, such as having people evacuate an area or stay indoors.

EPA developed the PAG Manual-- to provide guidance on protective actions and when to take them. The manual contains radiation dose guidelines that would trigger protective actions like evacuation or staying indoors. The PAG Manual is a planning guide for emergency responders, and does not change federal, state or local environmental standards. Emergency responders can use the manual for any radiation incident, such as spills of radioactive material, the detonation of a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or “dirty bomb” or an accident at a nuclear power plant. (EPA)

Reprocessing In South Korea?

Nuclear Waste A Gowing Headache For South Korea As US Resists Appeal For Reprocessing Technology

 

PACKED STORAGE: South Korea’s radioactive waste storage is filling up, but what South Korea sees as its best solution — reprocessing the spent fuel so it can be used again — faces stiff opposition from its U.S. ally.

NUCLEAR PROBLEM: South Korea It is now the world’s fifth-largest nuclear energy producer, operating 23 reactors. A commission will be launched before this summer to start public discussion on permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel rods.

THE TREATY: Nuclear technology was originally transferred from the U.S. under a 1973 treaty that governs how its East Asian ally uses nuclear technology and explicitly bars reprocessing. (Wash Post, AP, 3/26/2013)

Above-Normal Outages of U.S. Nuclear Capacity Persist at the Start of 2013

Nuclear outages in 2012 were generally higher than in recent years because of extended forced and planned outages at four nuclear power plants, and they continued into the new year. Coupled with the beginning of spring refueling outages, outage levels in early 2013 are above those seen in the previous five years.

In 2012, four nuclear plants accounted for more than four gigawatts of capacity in extended outages. All of these outages continued into 2013, and at least one plant will be retired without ever returning to service:

• Southern California Edison's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 (2,150 MW total) near San Diego, California, have both been offline since January 2012 as a precaution after a steam generator tube leak led to the discovery of excessive wear in the plant's new steam generators. The units remain offline while the problems are evaluated and repairs are made, which tightened electricity supply for Southern California last summer.
• Omaha Public Power District's (OPPD) Fort Calhoun reactor (478 MW) has been offline since April 9, 2011, initially due to flooding on the Missouri River. A subsequent inspection by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission identified additional problems, and OPPD is working through a checklist of repairs and changes to be addressed before restarting the plant. In August, OPPD hired Exelon, a company that operates 17 U.S. nuclear plants, to manage Fort Calhoun.
• Progress Energy Florida's Crystal River Unit 3 (860 MW) about 60 miles southwest of Gainesville, Florida, has been offline since September 2009 to repair the reactor containment vessel. Progress's handling of Crystal River repairs became an issue in the company's recent merger with Duke Energy. In February, Duke Energy announced plans to retire this unit from service.
• At NextEra Energy's Turkey Point plant outside Miami, Florida, Unit 3 (802 MW) went offline in late February 2012 for refueling, underwent additional repairs through the summer and early fall, and only returned to service in late October. In early November, Turkey Point Unit 4 (693 MW) was taken offline for a planned four-month refueling and maintenance outage. (DOE-EIA)

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on data from the Form EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Power Reactor Status Reports.  Note: Nuclear capacity in outage is estimated based on monthly generation data collected by EIA and daily availability data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Energy Department Announces New Funding Opportunity for Innovative Small Modular Reactors

As part of the Obama Administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy, the Energy Department today issued a new funding opportunity announcement to help U.S. industry design and certify innovative small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Building off the cost-share agreement announced in November 2012, this follow-on solicitation is open to other companies and manufacturers and is focused on furthering small modular reactor efficiency, operations and design.

The Energy Department will solicit proposals for cost-shared small modular reactor projects that have the potential to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and achieve commercial operation around 2025, while offering innovative and effective solutions for enhanced safety, operations and performance. Selected projects will span a five-year period with at least 50 percent provided by private industry. Subject to congressional appropriations, federal funding for this solicitation and the project announced last year will be derived from the total $452 million identified for the Department’s Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support program.

Small modular reactors – which are approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants – have compact, scalable designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, construction and economic benefits. The Energy Department is seeking 300 megawatts or smaller reactor designs that can be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to “plug and play” upon arrival. The smaller size reduces both capital costs and construction times and also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors.

Today’s funding opportunity announcement follows the Energy Department’s cost-share agreement announced last year to accelerate commercialization of a small modular reactor design that targets a 2022 deployment date. Under that agreement, the Department will share costs on the design, certification and licensing of the B&W mPower small modular reactor design, with B&W providing at least 50 percent of the total cost. The Tennessee Valley Authority plans to deploy two 180 megawatt small modular reactor units for commercial operation in Roane County, Tennessee, by 2021, with as many as six mPower units at that site. (DOE)

Find more information on the funding opportunity announced today at Grants.gov.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR)

LFTR

Work done at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) back in the 1950s and 60s demonstrated the feasibility of breeding U-233 from Thorium-232 as well as 'burning' U-233 in Molten Salts (ionic compounds). These molten salts  (lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride) serve as a carrier fluid for both Thorium (Thorium tetraflouride) [Blanket] and Uranium (Uranium tetraflouride) [Core]. The resulting design has been coined the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR (See diagram above). Below is a simplified LFTR diagram. 

 

In a LFTR, fission takes place in a liquid core. Fission generates heat that ultimately finds use to do some useful work (e.g. drive a turbine to make electricity). Surrounding the core is a blanket of liquid carrying Thorium. Neutrons from fission pass from the core to the blanket for absorption by the Thorium. This transforms the Thorium to Uranium-233. After chemical removal of the Uranium-233 from the blanket, it goes into the core as new fuel. Next is the chemical removal of the fission products from the core. The process is self-sustaining, requiring only Thorium as input.

A LFTR was never built at ORNL. However, they did build and operate the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MRSE) for four years from 1965 through 1969. This reactor generated 7.5 Megawatts, allowing the scientists to determine the design parameters and work through system issues to arrive at a design that allows for the burning nuclear fuel in molten salts. The MSRE worked out nearly all key issues needed to build a LFTR.

The MSRE demonstrated:

1. The burning of both U-235 as well as U-233 in a carrier salt of LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4
2. Operation at high temperature (650°C) at full power for more than one year
3. Operation at atmospheric pressure
4. That carrier salts were impervious to radiation damage
5. The carrier salt chemistry and metals metallurgy to eliminate corrosion
6. An efficient method of on-line refueling
7. Largely validated predictions

The MSRE did not:

1. Have a blanket to breed U-233 from Thorium (therefore, it was not a complete LFTR)
2. Have the size of a utility class power plant, (this was the next step before funding ceased)
3. Have a power conversion system to generate electricity

Conventional Nuclear Power suffers from two key issues: spent nuclear fuel or nuclear waste and costs of plant construction. Significant mitigation of both of these issues is accomplished with a LFTR.

LFTRs have some significant advantages compare to today’s nuclear power. The most significant of these stem from the liquid core running at atmospheric pressure.

These advantages are:

1. No water under pressure, therefore no pressure vessel, reducing cost
2. No large reinforced concrete containment building is required, reducing cost
3. Can be built in a factory, reducing costs
4. Because the core can be drained, LFTRs exhibit an enormous level of passive safety
5. Can be refueled without shut down
6. Exhibit 100% fuel burn up and generates almost no long lived radioactive waste
7. Configurations of LFTRs can consume the long lived radioactive elements in our present stockpiles of nuclear waste
8. Allow for the extraction of molybdenum-99 for medical purposes. Eliminating a supply shortage issue (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21512666)
9. Allows for the extraction (in large quantities) of other radioactive isotopes for medical purposes
10. Can operate at high temperature, allowing the use of waste heat to desalinate seawater; higher temperatures can make for economical generation of synthetic fuels, (could use CO₂ from the atmosphere, thus making synthetic fuels carbon neutral)

(Energy From Thorium)

History of 1st and Only Commercial Reprocessing Plant

Summary

West Valley, New York is the site of the first and, to date, only commercial reprocessing plant in the United States. After beginning operations in 1966 with a theoretical capacity to reprocess 300 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel per year, the facility reprocessed a total of 640 tons of waste in six years before shutting down in 1972. In that time, it transformed West Valley into a radioactive waste site, ultimately accumulating over 600,000 gallons of high-level waste in onsite storage tanks. After years of delay, legal disputes, and waste treatment and billions of dollars in federal expenditures, stabiliza­tion of the high-level waste under the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) was completed in 2002, but all of it remains onsite. Cleanup of reprocessing activities at the site, including "low-level" waste removal and decontamination, is expected to take 40 years and cost over $5 billion.

 

Timeline

1966	West Valley reprocessing plant opens, operated by Nuclear Fuel Services
1972	West Valley closes for renovations, never to reopen
1976	Nuclear Fuel Services cedes plant ownership to the state of New York, citing rising costs
1980	Congress passes the West Valley Demonstration Project Act
1988	High-level waste pretreatment begins at WVDP
1999	Vitrification of high-level waste initiated
2001	GAO releases report estimating $4.5 billion in total WVDP cleanup costs (GAO-01-314)
2002	High-level waste vitrification completed
2003	WVDP's focus shifts to low level waste
2005	GAO revisions indicate growth in cleanup cost total by $800 million
2006	New York sues the DOE, asking the court to determine the level of federal responsibility under the law, including long-term stewardship of the site, and seeking reimbursement of New York's costs and compensation for some aspects of the cleanup effort

(UCS)

(NY DEC)

(DOE Timeline)

(NRC)

Southern New Mexico Nuclear Fuel Storage Deal

The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (ELEA) includes the New Mexico Eddy and Lea County governments and the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs. The organization was formed to convince the U.S. Department of Energy that it should consider a site in this area for a proposed integrated nuclear fuel reprocessing facility.

The Alliance purchased 1,000 acres between Eddy and Lea County off U.S. Highway 62-180 and seven miles north of the Waste Isolation. As a result of the purchases, the Alliance was among eleven successful entities selected to receive federal grants to conduct detailed siting stud-ies for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities under the Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Partnership initiatives.

The alliance received over a million dollars for the siting study, but was not successful in getting the project built in the southeast corner of the state. Since then, the alliance has explored potential nuclear projects that could be built on the site.

This week the alliance announced it has struck a deal with French firm AREVA to help create an above-ground interim storage facility to store nuclear fuel on the 1,000 acres between Carlsbad and Hobbs. The facility is being billed as a safe way to temporarily house used fuel from nuclear power plants. The facility would provide more than 150 job opportunities, including positions for armed guards, nuclear scientists, engineers and managerial and administrative staff, according a news release.

The Alliance chose AREVA from a pool of 10 potential partners because the firm already has experience operating an above-ground interim storage facility in France. If plans proceed, the Eddy/Lea operation would be the first in the United States. AREVA is a good choice because it has experience in the nuclear industry and it has joined with Babcock and Wilson Technical Services Group in the URS Corporation led nuclear Waste Partnership LLC, to manage the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant located about 27 miles east of Carlsbad. (El Paso Times, 10/12/2012)

Duke Energy To Close Crystal River Nuclear Plant

Crystal River Plant

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy said Tuesday it will permanently close their Florida Crystal River Nuclear Plant after botched repairs and use $835 million from an insurance settlement to refund consumers forced to pay for higher-cost replacement power. But Duke Energy also said it will seek to recoup from customers its $1.65 billion investment in the Crystal River Nuclear Plant, about 70 miles north of Tampa. The company said it is starting a closing process that may take 60 years before the nuclear site is decontaminated and dismantled and considering whether to build a new, natural-gas-fueled power plant to replace the power lost.

The nuclear plant operated by Duke Energy subsidiary Progress Energy Florida has been shut down since 2009, when its concrete containment building cracked during a maintenance and upgrade project. A 2011 repair attempt resulted in new cracks in other parts of the containment structure. Estimates put repair costs at between $1.3 billion and $3.4 billion.

The federal operating license for the nuclear plant, which began operating in 1977, was due to expire at the end of 2016, meaning Duke Energy would have had to wage a regulatory fight to extend its authority to operate.

Progress Energy Florida provides electricity to more than 1.6 million Florida customers, including the cities of St. Petersburg and Clearwater and the area surrounding Orlando.  (Huffington Post, 2/5/2013)

S. 3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012

The NFRC clearly made a difference in the nuclear waste area.  Former Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman introduced the legislation below last year, which is clearly patterned after our proposed Nuclear Waste Mangement Agency Act.

S. 3469, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2012

The bill seeks to establish a new organization to manage nuclear waste, provide a consensual process for siting nuclear waste facilities, and ensure adequate funding for managing nuclear waste.

Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee

The Washington Post on Nuclear Waste

The Post’s View

A central nuclear waste repository is years IT HAS BEEN 15 years since the federal government was legally obliged — but failed — to begin accepting waste from the country’s nuclear power plants. It has been four years since President Obama zeroed out funds for a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., eliminating hope that the government would live up to its obligation anytime soon. And, according to the Obama administration’s new strategy for dealing with nuclear waste, it will be another 35 years until the government opens a permanent repository at a different site, location as yet unknown. Even if the government meets its new timetable, that adds up to 50 years of delay, a not-in-my-back-yard nightmare that the country is only partway through.

More than 68,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have accumulated next to U.S. reactors, which weren’t designed for long-term storage, and that figure is increasing by about 2,000 metric tons every year. Even decommissioned nuclear facilities require gates and guards to protect the waste, a ridiculous misuse of land and money. Meanwhile, consumers financing a federal waste disposal fund through their electricity bills wonder what they’ve been paying for, and the federal government’s financial liability for failing to collect the waste, already in the billions, continues to mount. The situation is safe enough, but it could be safer, and it’s inexcusably expensive.

 

Since the president helped to kill the Yucca project, his administration has borne a particular responsibility to devise a workable way to clean up this mess.

Last month the Energy Department finally released its proposal. It is a reasonable plan for post-Yucca policymaking that nevertheless relies on a big assumption — that someplace in the country will volunteer to host some waste.

The administration wants to build at least two centralized, interim storage facilities where waste could sit before its eventual transfer to a permanent repository. The first, to open by 2021, would be a pilot storage facility designed to take waste from decommissioned nuclear sites. The second would open by 2025; in combination, these facilities would draw down the amount of waste stored at current and decommissioned reactor sites. When the anticipated permanent repository comes online — supposedly by 2048 — the waste would move there.

Every step, the administration insists, must be “consent-based,” with localities accepting waste facilities in return for their economic benefits and perhaps some additional compensation. Congress tried forcing Nevada to take the country’s waste, the thinking goes; this time, the government should try recruitment rather than compulsion. We are skeptical that many localities would volunteer to host waste facilities, particularly the permanent repository, no matter the economic benefits. But perhaps the administration’s staged approach might be a way to convince communities, with each step building confidence that this material can be stored safely. (Wash Post, 2/3/2013)

U.S. Energy Department Defends Nuclear-Waste Fee to Court

The U.S. Energy Department (DOE) defended its assessment of the $750 million it collects annually from the nuclear-energy industry for waste disposal even as plans for a permanent repository remain uncertain. DOE has submitted the assessment to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which on June 1 said the agency’s 2010 determination justifying the fee was “legally defective.” It directed the department to re-evaluate whether it collects too little or too much revenue from utilities to dispose of nuclear waste.



The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which opposes collection of the fee, said it is still reviewing the department’s filing with the court. The case is National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. U.S. Department of Energy, 11-1066, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Energy Department has conducted a rigorous review of the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund fee, as directed by the D.C. Circuit, and determined not to propose an adjustment to the fee.



The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based industry group has protested having to pay the fee without a disposal site being made available.

President Barack Obama’s administration in 2010 ended funding for Yucca Mountain, a proposed repository about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, leaving plans for a permanent disposal site uncertain.

Interim Storage

The Energy Department said its endorsement of a plan to develop interim storage facilities before a permanent geologic repository is found -- as recommended by a commission on waste Obama set up after pulling the plug on Yucca -- shows the U.S. is committed to taking the waste from utilities. That justifies the continuation of the fee, according to the department.



The waste fee is tied to the department’s obligation to take and dispose of nuclear waste, “not the Yucca Mountain project,” the department said in the filing.

President Barack Obama’s administration will work with Congress to implement a strategy for nuclear-waste storage, the agency said in its report. (Bloomberg, 1/18/2013)

Nuclear Uprates

Although construction on a new nuclear plant in the U.S. hasn't occurred since the 1970s, nuclear power has added a total of 6,194 MW (equivalent of 6 large power plants) to the grid via uprates since 1977, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Exelon alone added 1,100 MW to its existing nuclear fleet from 1998 to 2008.

Pending applications nationwide reveal that uprates account for a planned 1,475 MW.
And according to the World Nuclear Association, more opportunity exists: some 3,200 MW could be added in the U.S. through 67 projects subject to NRC approval.



Uprates 101

The NRC defines an uprate as a utility refueling a reactor with either slightly more enriched uranium fuel or a higher percentage of new fuel in order to increase the power output of a reactor.
Consequently, the reactor is able to produce more thermal energy, driving a turbine generator to produce more megawatts. In order to accomplish this, components such as pipes, valves, pumps, heat exchangers, electrical transformers and generators must be able to accommodate the conditions that would exist at the higher power level.

This often requires replacing components so that systems are capable of handling higher flows.
The NRC is closely involved in power uprates, as licensees must submit an increase in power level and equipment modifications for regulatory approval."The analyses must demonstrate that the proposed new configuration remains safe and that measures continue to be in place to protect the health and safety of the public," the NRC says on its web site.

The design of every U.S. commercial reactor has excess capacity needed to potentially allow for an uprate, which can fall into three categories: measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates, stretch power uprates and extended power uprates.

The first option, measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates, are power increases that are less than 2 percent of the licensed power level. This type of uprate is achieved by implementing enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power involving the use of devices to more precisely measure feedwater flow, which is used to calculate reactor power. More precise measurements can reduce the degree of uncertainty in the power level.

Stretch power uprates are typically between 2 percent and 7 percent of the licensed power level, with the actual increase in power depending on a plant design's specific operating margin. Stretch power uprates usually involve changes to instrumentation settings but do not involve major plant modifications.

Extended power uprates are upgrades that have been approved for increases as high as 20 percent of the licensed power level. Extended power uprates usually require significant modifications to major pieces of non-nuclear equipment, such as high-pressure turbines, condensate pumps and motors, main generators and/or transformers.  (Power Engineering, November 2012, DOE-EIA)

Nuclear Waste Management Agency Act of 2013

Nuclear Waste Management Agency Act of 2013

 

(Introduced in Senate/House)

S./H.R.___________

 

113^th CONGRESS

 

1^st Session

S./H.R.____________ 

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101) to establish the United States Nuclear Waste Management Agency to manage all Federal and civilian spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste management programs currently under the control of the United States Department of Energy; to establish and operate low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage facilities on a fee basis; and to promote spent nuclear fuel reprocessing as a viable technology to aid in achieving and maintaining our national security and National Energy Policy goals, and for its potential to significantly reduce the total volume of radioactive waste designated for disposal in a Federal geologic repository.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

April__ (legislative day, APRIL___), 2013

 

Mr./Ms.____________ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

 

A BILL

 

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101) to establish the United States Nuclear Waste Management Agency to manage all Federal and civilian spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste management programs currently under the control of the United States Department of Energy; to establish and operate low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage facilities on a fee basis; and to promote spent nuclear fuel reprocessing as a viable technology to aid in achieving and maintaining our national security and National Energy Policy goals, and for its potential to significantly reduce the total volume of radioactive waste designated for disposal in a Federal geologic repository.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

 

(a)    SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the Nuclear Waste Management Agency Act of 2013.

(b)   TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents of this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Findings. 

Sec. 3. Definitions. 

Sec. 4. Purposes and Policies.

 

SECTION 2. FINDINGS.

 

            The Congress finds that—

 

1.      The United States Department of Energy (hereafter referred to as the DOE) has failed to provide suitable off-site commercial spent nuclear fuel (hereafter referred to as SNF) disposal to the commercial nuclear utilities per the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987; yet to date, nearly $18 billion dollars has been paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund by the electric utility ratepayers, and the fund has accumulated a total of nearly $35 billion including interest.  Also, the projected date for completion of the geologic repository by the DOE to begin emplacement of SNF was previously revised from 2010 to a new projected date of 2017 until the project was deemed no longer an option for storing SNF and other high-level waste (HLW) in 2009; while the original congressionally mandated date for having a geologic repository available was 1998. 

2.      There are presently 15 shutdown reactors at 14 sites in 10 states that are storing over 3,600 metric tons of uranium (MTUs) in the form of SNF in either dry storage casks or spent fuel pools.  Also, a total of over 60,000 MTUs of commercial SNF, in addition to nearly 13,000 MTUs of government-held SNF and defense-related HLW, is being stored at 121 sites in 39 states. 

3.      As of the beginning of Federal fiscal year 2012, beginning in annual year 2007, 18 applications for constructing a total of 27 new reactor units in the United States had been received by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Out of that number, only five applications for a total of six new reactor unit units have been suspended, leaving 12 applications for a total of 21 new reactor units to be reviewed.  Out of those 12 applications, four for a total of four new reactor units are in the Review Complete stage, and the other eight applications for a total of 16 new reactor units are currently in the Accepted/Docketed stage.  Further, applications for constructing more new nuclear power plants in the United States are projected to be submitted during annual year 2012 and beyond. 

4.      The DOE has not addressed the issue of civilian low-level radioactive waste disposal despite the fact that the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in 1985, has not lived up to the original expectations of the legislation due to the continuing inability of the various low-level radioactive waste compacts to develop low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities for use by members of the respective compacts, nor is it the DOE’s responsibility to do so under existing legislation. 

5.      Commercial SNF reprocessing is an acceptable, practical means of fulfilling the nuclear fuel needs, while concurrently reducing the need for geologic repository space, in other industrialized nations that rely to a great degree on nuclear power for their electricity.  Despite this fact, reprocessing efforts in the U.S. were banned in the 1970’s out of nuclear non-proliferation policy concerns.  Nonetheless, the U.S. accepts and condones commercial SNF reprocessing in such countries as France, India, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.  Further, SNF reprocessing can aid in reducing the availability of weapons-grade plutonium by creating mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, containing plutonium-239, for peaceful uses in nuclear power reactors.     

6.      Numerous Government Accountability Office reports have proven the DOE continues to lack effective program management, and many key projects managed by the DOE experience cost overruns and are not completed by the projected dates.  The inability of the DOE to provide SNF disposal services to our commercial nuclear power plants in a timely manner is causing additional, undue financial hardships on our nuclear utilities due to the need to license and construct on-site dry storage cask facilities and/or purchase additional dry storage casks to support prolonged on-site storage of SNF.  The following are three examples of the additional costs presently borne, or anticipated to be borne, by the Federal Government due to the DOE’s inability to provide services to the nuclear power industry in a timely manner, with such costs to be paid out of the Judgment Fund: 

      a.   The DOE recently settled a lawsuit by the Exelon Corporation, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator, for $80 million in past costs for SNF storage.  If Yucca Mountain stays closed, Exelon will get $300 million through 2010 and $600 million through 2015, after which the cost to keep SNF on-site would escalate;  

      b.   The U.S. Federal Court of Claims recently awarded nearly $150 million in         damages to three Northeast utilities that sued the Federal Government for             the DOE’s failure to provide timely SNF disposal services; and 

c.   To date, more than 60 lawsuits have been filed against the DOE pertaining to the SNF issue, with the total Federal liability for the prolonged storing of SNF at nuclear power plant sites estimated to be over $60 billion. 

7.      A financially autonomous, Federal corporation model would be ideally suited to effectively managing our nation’s SNF, high-level radioactive waste, and low-level radioactive waste.  Such a model was proposed by the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition in its analysis publication entitled Redesigning the U.S. High Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Program For Effective Management, January 1995.  Such a model is also similar to the Independent Federal Authority discussed by the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management in its publication entitled Alternative Means of Financing and Managing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (DOE/RW-0546), August 2001.  Also, a Federal corporation model would be ideally suited to providing the full array of radioactive waste management services to government and industry because it would be the most capable of the models for accurately assessing and meeting demands for service from a broad base of customers due to its business acumen, it would be accountable to outside regulators, and it would emphasize efficiency in all facets of operation.   

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.

 

            For the purposes of this Act: 

1.  The term `contract holder' means a party to a contract with the Executive Director of the United States Nuclear Waste Management Agency for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste entered into pursuant to section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)), as amended by this Act; and

 

2.      The terms ‘Secretary’, `Administrator', `civilian nuclear power reactor', `Commission', `Department', `disposal', `high-level radioactive waste', `Indian tribe', `repository', `reservation', `spent nuclear fuel', `State', `storage', `Waste Fund', and `Yucca Mountain site' shall have the meanings given such terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101), as amended by this Act. 

3.   As previously stated in this legislation the United States Department of Energy is referred to as the DOE, and OCRWM stands for the DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

SECTION 4. PURPOSES AND POLICIES.

 

TITLE 1 -- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

TITLE 2 -- SUPPORT FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING

 

TITLE I—UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY

 

SEC. 101. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROGRAM SCHEDULES.

 

(a)    IN GENERAL- Congress shall approve the creation of an autonomous federal agency, established as a Federal corporation, to manage the Federal SNF and high-level radioactive waste repository and low-level radioactive waste management programs currently under the control of the DOE, and to license, construct and operate civilian low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage facilities on a fee basis.  This agency shall be called the United States Nuclear Waste Management Agency (hereafter referred to as the NWMA).  The agency shall be governed by a Board of Governors, hereafter referred to as the Board, comprised of members selected from and representing the following organizations: DOE (1 member), Nuclear Energy Institute (1 member), National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (1 member), United States Department of the Interior (1 member), American Nuclear Society (1 member), Health Physics Society (1 member), National Governors Association (1 member), National Association of State Energy Officials (1 member), Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy (1 member), and National Congress of American Indians (1 member).  Each Governor shall be appointed by the President to serve for a period of four years.  The Board, in turn, shall select, with Senate concurrence, an individual not serving as a member of the Board to serve as the Agency’s chief executive officer and board chair, with the term of service to be at the pleasure of the Board.  The full title of this position shall be the Executive Director and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the NWMA.  The Board Chairman shall have full voting privileges.

 

(b)   RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD--(1) The Board shall convene at a minimum of every calendar quarter, not to exceed a period of 90 consecutive days, and at a Board approved location within the United States; 

(2) The Board shall establish and approve salaries and bonuses, with such salaries not limited by current Federal executive pay schedules, for the agency’s executives, with the maximum annual salary, excluding bonuses, of the Executive Director not to exceed $360,000 per annum for the first year with annual cost of living increases permitted thereafter.  The annual salary for each program director immediately below the position of Executive Director shall not exceed $300,000 for the first year, excluding bonuses, with annual cost of living increases permitted thereafter.  The Board shall also establish and approve travel and per diem payments for members of the Board while performing in an official Board capacity; 

(3) The Board shall establish and approve agency policies and procedures consistent with   Federal personnel management policies and regulations and with all pertinent nuclear industry regulations, including Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Energy, Parts 0 to 199; Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Environment, Parts 190, 191, 194 and 197; and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Transportation, Parts 171, 172 and 173; 

(4) The Board shall establish fees for providing radioactive waste management and environmental restoration services performed by the NWMA, and shall approve all activities proposed by the Executive Director to be necessary to support the pertinent Federal, State and local government, academic, medical, nuclear power industry and all other public and private programs desirous of radioactive waste support services, including low-level radioactive waste supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage services. 

(c)    RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR--(1) The Executive Director shall be responsible for the overall operation of the day-to-day activities of the NMWA, and shall have the authority to establish desired performance goals and management standards for the NWMA; 

(2)   The Executive Director shall, within 120 days of confirmation, present a DOE assets transition plan and organization chart to the Board for its approval, with all desired DOE assets to be transferred to the NWMA in a timely manner commencing 60 days from the date of the Board’s presentation of its approval to Congress or as otherwise directed by Congress, with the date of completion of the transfer of all desired assets to be jointly established by Congress and the President; 

(3)   With the realization that knowledgeable, efficient and enthusiastic employees are the most valuable asset of any organization, the Executive Director is empowered to devise and implement an effective training program that will enable all employees to perform their duties safely and efficiently, and that will encourage employees to excel in their respective fields of endeavor and their careers; to devise and implement a performance appraisal program that will ensure fairness, thoroughness and honesty in the review of each employee’s performance; to devise and implement a promotion system that ensures fairness based on the strict adherence to Federal merit promotion principles; to devise and implement a realistic employee awards and recognition program to recognize employees who are truly deserving of such recognition; and to devise and implement a program for ensuring accountability at all levels, especially at the management levels in order to maintain an optimum degree of professionalism throughout the NWMA; 

(4)   The Executive Director shall have the authority to maintain, modify or cancel any existing contracts with contract holders providing services on previously owned DOE facilities that have been transferred to the NWMA.  Further, the Executive Director shall have the authority to impose fines against and/or cancel contract payments to contract holders if their performance does not adhere to acceptable standards as established by the NWMA, including failing to meet expectations for the timely and cost effective completion of contracted services; 

(5)   The Executive Director shall submit an annual report, as approved by the Board, to Congress on the status of all pertinent activities of the NWMA, including projected and actual completion dates of key activities. 

(d)   RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY-- (1) upon the establishment of the NWMA and within a time frame jointly specified by Congress and the President, the Secretary shall ensure the completion of the transfer to the NWMA the control of the Yucca Mountain Project, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (hereafter referred to as WIPP), and any other DOE owned facilities deemed necessary by the Executive Director to enable the NWMA to fulfill its congressionally mandated activities.  The transfers shall also include DOE staff currently employed at those facilities, based upon the review of their respective qualifications by, and the approval of, the Executive Director.  Any DOE employees not transferring to the NWMA will be promptly reassigned by the Secretary to other duties within the DOE; 

(2)   Within the same time frame the Secretary shall transfer to the NWMA all existing contracts, and all pertinent funds previously budgeted, to support the projects and facilities that are transferred to the NWMA.  

(e)    RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONGRESS -- (1) Congress shall exercise greater flexibility in the disbursement of the Nuclear Waste Fund (hereafter referred to as the NWF) to enable the NWMA to meet projected completion dates on projects intended to be funded by the NWF, as deemed essential by the Board, and with the approval of Congress;  

(2)   Congress shall authorize the NWMA to establish and collect fees for providing low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage services, performing environmental restoration services, and other pertinent support activities as deemed essential by the Board;  

(3)   Congress shall authorize the NWMA to construct an interim, centralized SNF storage facility on or near the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository site or on other Federal or Tribal lands, with the concurrence of the Department of the Interior, with the interim storage facility to be operational by a date specified by Congress; 

(4)   Congress shall authorize the NWMA, upon transfer of the WIPP site, to commence the licensing activities for commercial low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage at the WIPP, with the site to be fully licensed, operational and receiving shipments of low-level radioactive waste consisting of Classes A, B, C and greater than C, up to and including Highway Route Controlled Quantities (as defined by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations), not later that three years from the date of the transfer of the WIPP site;  

(5)   Congress shall authorize the NWMA, with the concurrence of the Department of the Interior, to select other Federal or Tribal lands to serve as low-level radioactive waste receipt, supplementary segregation, treatment and burial or monitored/retrievable storage sites, and to pursue licensing and construction activities as deemed necessary by the Board. 

 TITLE II -- SUPPORT FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING

 

SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROGRAM SCHEDULES.

 

(a)    RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONGRESS -- (1) With the acknowledgement by Congress that SNF is in effect a renewable energy source, Congress shall authorize the NWMA to pursue the study of SNF reprocessing for the purposes of significantly reducing the total volume of radioactive waste to be stored in the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository, with the emphasis being placed on determining the most cost effective method(s) while ensuring the utmost in proliferation-resistant technologies. This activity is essential in order to ensure sufficient supplies of new nuclear fuel are available to support the projected growth in our nation’s base load electric generating capacity for nuclear power plants, especially if SNF reprocessing becomes inevitable based on dwindling domestic supplies of natural, unprocessed uranium and the potential for our inability to obtain sufficient supplies of natural, unprocessed uranium from foreign suppliers due to national security issues or an increase in the demand for nuclear fuel in the host countries or regions that may cause the foreign suppliers to significantly reduce the amount of uranium for export in order to meet their national or regional needs.  Further, Congress authorizes the NWMA, to utilize Federal lands in and around the Yucca Mountain Geologic Repository site or on other Federal or Tribal lands, with the concurrence of the Department of the Interior, to license, construct and operate SNF reprocessing facilities, utilizing proliferation-resistant technologies, if the Federally-owned facilities are deemed essential to ensuring sufficient supplies of new nuclear fuel are available to meet and sustain critical national energy demands or other national security needs, and commercial suppliers are not capable of meeting those needs; 

(2) Since there are conflicting views in the scientific community regarding the benefits of existing versus advanced SNF reprocessing technologies for meeting proliferation-resistant standards desired by the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Congress shall allocate annual funds from sources other than the NWF to be used by the NWMA to develop the safest, most cost effective method(s) of reprocessing SNF to meet desired proliferation-resistant standards, with the annual fund allocation amount not to exceed $250 million or a lesser amount as prescribed by Congress; 

(3) Congress shall also authorize the NWMA to negotiate with commercial suppliers of nuclear fuel to incorporate proliferation-resistant SNF reprocessing into their nuclear fuel manufacturing process, and to have a national SNF reprocessing capability in place by a date to be determined by Congress once such a program is proven to be economically feasible based on market costs for uranium, with the knowledge that there may be finite global quantities of natural, unprocessed uranium available to meet increasing demands for nuclear fuel.

Passed the Senate/House (Date).

Attest:

Secretary.

END