Licensing a Repository:
Update - February 1, 2010 - The Obama Administration has indicated that it does not support developing a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Consistent with that position, DOE may submit to the NRC a motion to withdraw or suspend its Yucca Mountain license application during FY 2010.
It is important to note that Congress created a legal obligation in 1982 establishing a comprehensive federal policy to resolve the nations problem of what to do with wastes from nuclear reactors and defense facilities. The policy centers on deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
The future of Yucca Mountain:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) submitted thier license application for authorization to construct and operate a high-level nuclear respository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada on June 3, 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On March 5th, 2010 Department of Energy (DOE) filed a motion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withdraw the application to build and operate Yucca Mountain.
About one year ago President Barack Obama cut all funding for the DOE's work towards realizing Yucca Mountain apart from answering questions from the NRC related to the license application.
The current route for the nation is the 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, nominated last month (Feb 2010). It is to evaluate fuel-cycle and disposal options, including the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, but will not touch on any siting concerns. Work for the group begins with its first meeting on 25-26 March and will continue until 2012.
Critics say the geology of the mountain ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas is unsuitable for safe storage of nuclear waste for periods that would stretch beyond tens of thousands of years. Further, they say shipping the radioactive material to Nevada would invite accidents and possible attacks.
But others contend the DOE strategy to place waste in corrosion-resistant containers within Yucca Mountain tunnels will meet federal safety standards for up to 1 million years.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is in the midst of multiyear safety review, while panels of the commission's administrative judges are hearing legal challenges to the project. Both would come to an end if the Department of Energy is given permission to withdraw a construction application.
After three decades, the country is back to square one on the construction of a national nuclear waste long term storage facility.
The reasons for the change in direction have been rather vague. Concerns about the safety of transporting dangerous radioactive waste cross country by rail have been cited. But, there have been transports of waste going on for years without an accident or terrorist threats.
In addition, questions have been raised about earthquake faults near the Yucca site, but previous DOE scientists have said that tectonic and seismic activity would not affect the natural systems. The ongoing tectonic deformation happens at such a slow rate, it would not affect the area for the 10,000 year duration of compliance.
If Yucca Mountain remains an unviable repository for the country’s radioactive nuclear waste, the material will have to be stored on the site of each nuclear power plant. It would not be an immediate problem for newer designs and future plants, which would have time and storage capacity to wait out the development for a new repository plan. But older facilities like the Dresden Nuclear Power plant, could inevitably have to store its waste well past the 60 year decommission time.
- On March 3rd the DOE submitted a motion to withdraw its pending license application for a permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada asking the Board to dismiss its application with prejudice and to impose no additional terms of withdrawal.
- March 3rd, the State of Washington (Washington) petitions for leave to intervene in this proceeding.
- March 4th Aiken County, South Carolina petitioned to intervene in opposition to the DOE’s motion to withdraw, with prejudice, its application.(In the alternative, Aiken County seeks to stay the matter pending a resolution of the petition Aiken County filed with the US court of Appeals concerning the lawfulness of a Motion to Withdraw the license application. The court of appeals has directed the DOE to respond to the petition by March 24. ( Aiken County also stated “the remaining respondents have failed to act as required under 42 U.S.C.A. § 10134(d) by acquiescing in and granting the DOE's request that consideration of the already submitted License Application be stayed pending its withdrawal, rather than considering and issuing a final decision on the merits of said application. Under 42 U.S.C.A. § 10134(d), these parties have an obligation to review and rule on the License Application as submitted.”)
- March 15, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed to intervene(NARUC, founded in 1889, is a national organization whose members include the commissioners that head the agencies in the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands charged with regulating the rates and conditions of service associated with the intrastate operations of electric, natural gas, water, and telephone utilities.)
- March 15th, Petition to Intervene of the Prairie Island Indian Community (The Petitioner is a federally recognized Indian tribe, whose community is adjacent to an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation where spent nuclear fuel is presently stored.)
- March 1st Cessation of Performance Confirmation Activates at the Yucca Mountain Site ceased
- March 19, 2010 - IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT - MOTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT
For more information please see these webpages:
US Office of Mangement and Budget (DOE)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/doe.pdf
In passing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Congress assigned the primary responsibility for implementing this national policy to the Department of Energy (DOE). On February 14, 2002, Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy, recommended Yucca Mountain to President Bush (4 page letter) . On February 15, 2002, having received the Secretary’s recommendations, President Bush considered the site qualified for a construction authorization and urged congress to undertake necessary legislative action to expedite the process (President Bush's letter to Congress). As directed by congress the DOE prepared and submitted a licensing application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3, 2008 seeking authorization to construct a high-level waste geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. For details, see the following documents and correspondence from DOE:
- Transmittal Letter (June 3, 2008)
- General Information
- Safety Analysis Report (SAR)
- 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
- 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
- Letter to NRC re: Notification of Plan for Supplementing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (October 3, 2008)
Where can the public access the LSN?
You can access the LSN on the Internet at http://www.lsnnet.gov/. If you do not have access to the Internet, you can find public Internet access at the following locations:
- Pahrump Yucca Mountain Information Center
- Most community libraries
- Most colleges and universities
The U.S. Department of Energy's role in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process for a repository
Environmental Protection Agency
Several documents that you may find useful in learning about EPA's Yucca Mountain standards and the basis for them are included in the following kinds of information:
Yucca Mountain regulatory documents
Licensing Hearing Schedules
Updated schedule August of 2009:
Key Milestones Completion Date
(days after receipt of application)Publication of FRN announcing opportunity for hearings 10/22/08 Deadline for filing petitions for intervention & contentions 12/22/08 Answers to intervention and interested government participant Petitions 02/10/09 Petitioner’s response to answers 02/24/09 First Prehearing Conference 03/12/09 First Prehearing Conference Order identifying participants in proceeding, admitted contentions, and setting discovery and other schedules 05/11/09
| Date | Description |
|---|---|
| 09/08/2008 | Letter to DOE Announcing the Docketing of the Yucca Mountain License Application and NRC Staff’s Position on EIS Adoption |
| 09/05/2008 | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff’s Adoption Determination Report for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statements for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca |
| 06/10/2008 | Letter to DOE Acknowledging Receipt of Application |
| Key Milestones | Completion Date (days after receipt of application) |
|---|---|
| Publication of Federal Register Notice announcing opportunity for hearings | 10/22/08 |
| Deadline for filing petitions for intervention & contentions | 12/22/08 |
| Answers to intervention and interested government participant Petitions | 02/10/09 |
| Petitioner’s response to answers | 02/24/09 |
| First Prehearing Conference | 03/12/09 |
| First Prehearing Conference Order identifying participants in proceeding, admitted contentions, and setting discovery and other schedules | 05/11/09 |
Schedule for the Proceeding on Consideration of Construction Authorization for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository.
Schedule for the Proceeding on Consideration of Construction Authorization for a High-Level Waste Geologic Repository (After SER is Issued)
Yucca Mountain Repository Schedule |
|
| Design for License Application Complete | |
| Licensing Support Network Certification | |
| Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued | |
| Final License Application Verifications Complete | 30 May 2008 |
| Final Rail Alignment EIS Issued | 30 June 2008 |
| License Application Submittal | |
| License Application Docketed by NRC | |
Best-Achievable Repository Construction Schedule |
|
| Start Nevada Rail Construction | 5 October 2009 |
| Construction Authorization from NRC | |
| "Receive and Possess" License Application Submittal to NRC | 29 March 2013 |
| Rail Access In-Service | 30 June 2014 |
| Construction Complete for Initial Operations | 30 March 2016 |
| Start up and Pre-Op Testing Complete | 31 December 2016 |
| Begin Receipt | |
The Hearing Process
Hearings are conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice established in 10 CFR Part 2 of NRC's regulations.
To learn more about the NRC's rules of practice that govern the conduct of NRC hearings, the NRC has provided resources for understanding 10 CFR Part 2. For information about decisions resulting from these hearings, see the Hearing Decisions page.
The NRC's hearing process makes it possible for the public to get a full and fair hearing on civilian nuclear matters. Administrative judges from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) generally conduct these hearings. On rare occasions the Commission itself may preside at a hearing. The ASLBP's judges are employees of the NRC; however, under NRC rules and under the Administrative Procedure Act, they are independent from the NRC staff. The judges have no stake in the outcome of a proceeding, and reach objective decisions based on the record.
The Commission entertains appeals and petitions for review of the decisions of the ASLBP. A special Commission office (Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication) assists the Commission in these reviews by analyzing the cases, determining the legal options for a final decision, and drafting decisions for the Commission in accordance with the Commission's guidance. The Secretary of the Commission maintains the files for NRC's licensing and enforcement adjudications, known as the Adjudicatory Docket.
To participate in NRC hearings, members of the public must explain the nature of their interest in the proposed NRC licensing or enforcement action and set forth the reasons and bases for their concerns. Generally, hearings are sought by those who reside or work near an affected nuclear facility and who believe that a proposed action raises environmental or safety questions. Participants in NRC hearings have included individuals, citizen groups, private businesses, and governmental bodies. For more on how to become involved in the hearing process regulations see NRC page on Public Involvement in Hearings page.
NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 specify different types of hearing processes for different types of agency actions. For some cases, particularly in the enforcement and certain reactor licensing areas, the NRC employs a formal, trial-type process similar to the procedures used in non-jury Federal court lawsuits, including pre-trial discovery between the parties and questioning of witnesses at an evidentiary hearing. In most cases, however, the NRC follows a more informal hearing process. Decisions of licensing boards can be appealed to the Commission, and Commission decisions can be appealed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
Contention submittals:
The Nevada Counties of Churchill, Esmeralda, Lander and Mineral filed joint contentions on December 19, 2008. As " Affected Units of Local Government" (AULG) and pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. (42 U.S.c. §10247 et seq.) and pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Register Notice Vol. 73, No. 205, dated October 22,2008, "any AULG seeking party status shall be considered a party to this proceeding, provided that it files at least one admissible contention in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309. An AULG need not address the standing requirements under that section."
Four counties petitions to intervene (due to large file sizes the petition is broken into 6 sections):
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6Four Counties Notice of Adoption of Contentions
ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD ADMITS EIGHT PARTIES 299 CONTENTIONS IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROCEEDING
Summary of four county contentions accepted for hearing
Our Trackhearings link has all the updates related to the ongoing Yucca Mountain High-Level Waste hearings.
All petitions to intervene and the DOE responses can be viewed at trackhearings.com
