[NEIU Physics Students] [Fwd: FYI #110: Nuclear Waste Hearing]

[Gregory W. Anderson]

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: fyi at aip.org
To: G-Anderson at neiu.edu
Subject: FYI #110: Nuclear Waste Hearing
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:00:32 -0500

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 110: November 7, 2007
Web version: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/110.html

Committee Examines Future Cost of Nuclear Waste Storage

Despite years of study, and the expenditure of billions of dollars,
the problem of how best to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste
remains unresolved.  As reviewed in FYI #109 (see
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/109.html ), there is disagreement about
the feasibility of spent fuel reprocessing.   The nation's only
proposed  repository beneath Yucca Mountain, Nevada is 20 years
behind schedule.

An October 4 hearing of the House Budget Committee was all about
dollars-and-cents.  The committee heard testimony about the billions
of dollars it will cost to open Yucca Mountain, and the billions of
dollars of liability settlements that have, and will, be awarded to
utility companies because of delays in opening the repository.

Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) opened the hearing by
explaining  that the federal government could have between $7 and
$30 billion in total liability costs because of its contractual
failure to take possession of spent fuel from electric utilities.
In 1983, the Department of Energy signed 76 contracts to accept this
waste beginning in 1998.  Utility ratepayers have paid $14.8 billion
into the Nuclear Waste Fund since the contacts were signed.

Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) also gave opening remarks.  "For 25 years, we
have studied a hole in the ground to death . . . we are looking at a
hole to no where," he said, adding that the federal government has
spent $10 to $11 billion in developing the Yucca Mountain
repository.  He chided Members of Congress for an out-of-sight,
out-of-mind approach to the selection of Yucca Mountain as the
nation's sole underground repository.

The first witness to testify was Edward Sproat, Director of the DOE
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.  Sproat was an
effective witness, and left little doubt that he would meet or beat
his deadline to submit a Yucca Mountain construction license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30, 2008.
If the repository holds to its schedule, the best achievable date
for its opening is March 2017.  This schedule assumes that DOE will
receive its future $1.5 to $2.0 billion annual requests for the
repository.  The program has historically received $350 to $500
million.  Sproat  warned committee members that without this
funding,  "the repository will not get built."  Recognizing that
this is a steep funding increase, he asked the committee to consider
reform legislation allowing DOE to more fully access the Nuclear
Waste Fund.  The Fund now has a balance of $20.7 billion.  Sproat
also told the committee there would be significant costs if the
repository's opening is slipped.    If the repository is opened in
2017, the total potential liability is estimated to be $7.0
billion.  If the opening is delayed to 2020, liability could
increase to $11.0 billion.

Michael Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, of
the Justice Department was the second witness.  He explained that 67
cases have been filed by utilities for costs associated with their
storage of spent nuclear fuel.  In 2000, a federal court agreed the
delay is a breach of contract.  The government has paid $710
million.  Some industry observers estimate eventual claims could
total $50 billion.

The third witness to testify was Kim Cawley, Chief of the Natural
and Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit of the Congressional
Budget Office. Cawley testified that as a result of the legal
settlements, taxpayers are paying for "a decentralized waste storage
system at sites around the country."  He warned Yucca Mountain's
70,000 metric ton statutory cap is less than the amount of waste for
which the government will eventually be responsible.   Cawley noted
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive 32 license
applications for new nuclear plants in the next few years.

There was considerable discussion following the testimony about how
much of the current and future Nuclear Waste Fund would be needed to
keep the depository's opening on schedule.  Also discussed was an
increase in the cap on the amount of  waste that can be stored at
the repository.  There was also an exchange about how utilities are
now storing their nuclear waste on site.  Sproat remarked that most
plants have ample space  for future storage in dry casks, adding
"it's a very safe means of storage." While not disagreeing, Chairman
Spratt responded, "It would seem to me that the prudent thing to do
is to put it in one place."

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi at aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3095
##END##########

If you no longer wish to receive this content alert for each issue,
please send a blank e-mail to fyi-signoff-request at listserv.aip.org.
-- 
Gregory W. Anderson <g-anderson at neiu.edu>
Northeastern Illinois University