DOCSLIB.ORG

Breaking the Cycle: Recommendations For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Breaking the Cycle: Recommendations For e Energy Communities Alliance A COMMUNITY HANDBOOK ON NUCLEAR ENERGY: Understanding Nuclear Energy and Alternatives for the Future Kara Colton Allison Doman Seth Kirshenberg Copyright© 2014 Energy Communities Alliance, Inc. All rights reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This handbook was prepared by Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy, under Cooperative Agreement DE-NE0000006. It does not represent the views of the Department of Energy, and no official endorsement should be inferred. This handbook is an update to the version originally released in March 2012. The authors are Kara Colton, Allison Doman and Seth Kirshenberg of ECA. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of many local government officials, including the ECA Board of Directors impacted by nuclear waste and storage issues, those interested in nuclear fuel cycle alternatives, and those communities considering support for new nuclear energy facilities and technology development. We also appreciate assistance from Department of Energy officials who provided input and resources. Finally, ECA would like to thank the many individuals who reviewed and provided input and technical guidance to ECA on the drafts of this handbook. Chair Treasurer Immediate Past Chair Mayor Tom Beehan Councilor Fran Berting Councilmember Robert Thompson City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee Incorporated County of City of Richland, Washington Los Alamos, New Mexico Vice Chair Secretary Councilmember Chuck Smith Mayor Steve Young Aiken County, South Carolina City of Kennewick, WA LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEA: Atomic Energy Act MOX: Mixed Oxide AEC: Atomic Energy Commission MRS: Monitored Retrievable Storage AEO: Annual Energy Outlook NARUC: National Association of Regulatory AFCI: Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Utility Consumers BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs NAS: National Academy of Sciences BNFL: British Nuclear Fuels NE: Nuclear Energy or Office of Nuclear BRC: Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Energy Nuclear Future NEI: Nuclear Energy Institute BWR: Boiling Water Reactor NFS: Nuclear Fuel Services CO2: Carbon Dioxide NGO: Non-Governmental Organization DHLW: Defense High-Level Waste NIF: National Ignition Facility DNFSB: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety NIMBY: Not in My Backyard Board NNSA: National Nuclear Security DOE: Department of Energy Administration DOE-EM: Department of Energy-Office of NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Management NRG: NRG Energy, Inc. DOE-NE: Department of Energy-Office of NUMO: Nuclear Waste Management Nuclear Energy Organization of Japan DOE STRATEGY: Department of Energy’s NWF: Nuclear Waste Fund Strategy for the Management and Disposal for NWPA: Nuclear Waste Policy Act Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive NWTRB: National Waste Technical Review Waste Board DOI: Department of Interior ONSIR: Office of Nuclear Security and Incident DOT: Department of Transportation Response ECA: Energy Communities Alliance OPEC: Organization of the Petroleum EDF: Électricité de France Exporting Countries EIA: Energy Information Administration PFS: Private Fuel Storage, LLC EM: Environmental Management or Office of MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Environmental Management PILT: Payment in Lieu of Taxes EPA: Environmental Protection Agency PUREX: Plutonium-Uranium Extraction EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute PWR: Pressurized Water Reactor FEMA: Federal Emergency Management R&D: Research and Development Agency RCRA: Resource Conservancy and Recovery FFHR: Fusion-Fission Hybrid Reactor Act GAO: Government Accountability Office SFR: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor HLW: High-Level Waste SMR: Small Modular Reactor IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency SNF: Spent Nuclear Fuel INL: Idaho National Laboratory TEPCO: Tokyo Electric Power Company ISFSI: Independent spent fuel storage TMI: Three Mile Island installation TRU Waste: Transuranic Waste JAEA: Japan’s Atomic Energy Agency UN: United Nations kWh: Kilowatt Hour UREX+: Uranium Reduction and Extraction LLW: Low-Level Waste WANO: World Association of Nuclear LWR: Light Water Reactor Operators MDO: Waste management and disposal WIPP: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant organization WNA: World Nuclear Association A Community Handbook on Nuclear Energy: Understanding Nuclear Energy and Alternatives for the Future CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2: LOCAL GOVERNMENT ROLE IN SITING ........................................... 21 CHAPTER 3: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE UNITED STATES ................................... 31 CHAPTER 4: THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE IN THE UNITED STATES ................ 45 CHAPTER 5: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: SMRS, RECYCLING AND NEW NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................... 53 CHAPTER 6: REGULATING NUCLEAR WASTE ......................................................... 63 CHAPTER 7: NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE UNITED STATES ............... 69 CHAPTER 8: PERMANENT GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL ............................................. 81 CHAPTER 9: INTERIM STORAGE OF WASTE ............................................................ 87 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 91 APPENDICES Appendix A — Examples of Engaging Local Governments from Abroad Appendix B — Endnotes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local governments have a critical role to play in the development of new nuclear facilities and need to be part of the discussion on future nuclear policy with decision-makers at the federal, state and regional levels. Nuclear facilities and activities can provide a community, region and state with economic opportunities. Expanding nuclear energy manufacturing and resources also can provide a “clean” and reliable electricity supply. However, risks do exist and a community must become educated in order to understand and address such risks. Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) developed A Community Handbook on Nuclear Energy: Understanding Nuclear Energy and Alternatives for the Future (Handbook) to assist local communities in identifying and understanding the myriad issues associated with potentially hosting a nuclear power production, manufacturing, defense, disposal or other facility. Included in this Handbook is the history of issues that should be considered and more importantly the role that local governments and communities can play in the development of a nuclear facility in their community. This Handbook is an update of the May 2012 version of A Community Handbook on Nuclear Energy (Original Handbook). Although many of the lessons learned and the history have not changed since the Original Handbook was published, a number of efforts to prioritize and address nuclear waste management have evolved and key issues such as the role of the local government in siting a nuclear waste facility are addressed in this update. Further, this Handbook expands on local community strategies, provides an update on the future of the nuclear industry in the United States, and addresses new waste management legislation that has been introduced in the past two Congresses. This Handbook is not written by people who work for the nuclear industry, the federal government, or anti- or pro-nuclear groups. Instead, this Handbook is written from the experience of local governments that host nuclear facilities, which have been and will be most impacted by any policies regarding nuclear energy development and nuclear waste management. ECA’s leadership consists of mayors, councilmembers, commissioners, chairpersons, judges, city and county managers, Community Reuse Organization executives and board members, economic development professionals, and others. They assisted in the development of this Handbook and provided input into the realities of hosting such a facility, including the benefits and challenges. Handbook Outline From the outset this Handbook introduces local governments that may be interested in hosting nuclear facilities to the concepts, terminology, benefits and challenges associated with Nuclear Energy – Community Handbook nuclear energy and nuclear waste. This Handbook aims to assist local communities to better understand the development and impact of nuclear energy policies; the various stages of the “nuclear fuel cycle;” alternatives to manage, store and dispose of nuclear waste; and the new nuclear technologies that are being developed. At the beginning of each chapter, key issues are outlined for local governments and communities to consider, and, at the end of each chapter, this Handbook makes recommendations for local governments and communities interested in taking an active role in the future of nuclear energy. Finally, this Handbook includes case studies in Appendix A that consider how nuclear waste issues are handled in other countries. Specifically, the case studies examine the role of local governments in other countries that are evaluating whether to (1) increase the use of nuclear energy, (2) close the fuel cycle to manage nuclear waste or (3) develop a permanent geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. Some aspects of the case studies can serve as models for communities in the United States to consider. Recommendations Nuclear energy policy — in regards to new nuclear facility development and nuclear waste management — is constantly evolving. In 2012, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) announced the first award of a small modular
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INTERIM STORAGE of SPENT FUEL in the UNITED STATES Allison Macfarlane
    4 Oct 2001 17:35 AR AR143-08-ma.tex AR143-08-ma.SGM ARv2(2001/05/10) P1: GJC Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2001. 26:201–35 Copyright c 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved INTERIM STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN THE UNITED STATES Allison Macfarlane Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; e-mail: [email protected] Key Words irradiated fuel, nuclear energy, nuclear waste, dry casks ■ Abstract At nuclear power reactors around the United States, quantities of spent or irradiated nuclear fuel are growing while owner-operator companies await the ap- proval of a permanent storage facility. Some reactors have run out of space in their cooling pools and have had to resort to dry cask storage. The first half of this paper looks at the policy history of interim storage in the United States, discusses the current storage status at individual reactors, and then reviews the technologies available to deal with it. The second half of the paper considers the different options for dealing with this hazardous material in the interim, before a permanent high-level nuclear waste repos- itory is opened, and examines the safety, security, transportation, economic, political, and other issues that bear on the choice of option. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................202 2. POLICY BACKGROUND ............................................203 2.1. Legislative History ...............................................204 2.2. Private-Storage Options ...........................................206 2.3. Licensing Requirements ...........................................207 3. INTERIM-STORAGE POLICIES AND PLANS IN OTHER COUNTRIES ..............................................208 3.1. France .........................................................208 3.2. United Kingdom .................................................208 3.3. Germany .......................................................208 3.4. Sweden ........................................................209 3.5.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-15-141, SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT: Outreach
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters October 2014 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability GAO-15-141 D October 2014 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL MANAGEMENT Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance for Federal Activities That Address Liability Highlights of GAO-15-141, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found DOE is responsible for disposing of Spent nuclear fuel—the used fuel removed from nuclear power reactors—is commercial spent nuclear fuel. DOE expected to accumulate at an average rate of about 2,200 metric tons per year in entered into contracts with owners and the United States. This spent nuclear fuel is mostly stored wet, submerged in generators of spent nuclear fuel to pools of water. However, since pools have been reaching their capacities, begin disposing of it beginning in 1998, owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel (typically utilities and reactor with plans for disposal in a national operators) have been transferring it to canisters that are placed in casks on repository. DOE, however, was unable concrete pads for dry storage—which is an expensive and time-consuming to meet the 1998 date and, as a result process. When operating reactors’ licenses begin to expire in the 2030s, the rate of lawsuits, the federal government has of spent nuclear fuel accumulation is expected to decrease, but the amount in dry paid out about $3.7 billion for storage storage will increase as the pools are closed and all spent nuclear fuel is costs.
    [Show full text]
  • The SKULL VALLEY GOSHUTES and the NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE CONTROVERSY TEACHER BACKGROUND
    Timponogos - Ute Deep Creek Mountains - Goshute THE GOSHUTES the SKULL VALLEY GOSHUTES AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE CONTROVERSY TEACHER BACKGROUND The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Reservation, located approximately forty-five miles southwest of Monument Valley - Navajo Salt Lake City, was established by executive order in 1912 and covers 17,248 acres. With limited land holdings in a sparse, secluded landscape, the Skull Valley Band has struggled to develop a viable economic base. In the 1990s, the nation’s executive council undertook efforts to locate a temporary nuclear waste storage site on the reservation. The history of this controversial issue highlights the OGoshutes’BJectiV Estruggle for sovereignty, economic independence, and environmental security. - The student will be able to comprehend how tribal sovereignty is complicated by disagreements over land use, economic development, and state vs. federal control. They will also understand the econom ic and ecological variables that have shaped the Skull Valley Band of Goshute’s attempted acquisition of a nuclear waste storage facility. Teacher Materials At a Glance: We Shall Remain: The Goshute Goshute Sovereignty and the Contested West Desert Student Materials (chapter 4, 18:37–22:05)TIME Frame - Versatile Debate: Should the Goshutes Build a Temporary Two block periods with homework Nuclear Waste Storage Site on the Skull Valley Three standard periods with homework Reservation? YES: Forrest Cuch NO: Margene Bullcreek Procedure Using information from At a Glance: from We Shall Remain: The Goshute Goshute Sovereignty and the Contested West Desert and clips , teach your students about the controversy over nuclear waste storage on the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Reservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent-Based Siting
    Consent-Based Siting From: Karen Hadden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 12:00 AM To: Consent Based Siting <[email protected]> Subject: Comments regarding Consent‐Based Siting 1 SEED Coalition and No Nuclear Waste Aqui Comments – July 31, 2016 In Response to DOE Invitation for Public Comment regarding Consent-Based Siting Dear U.S. Department of Energy, These comments are being submitted on behalf of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, a non-profit environmental organization based in Texas, with 2500 members, and the No Nuclear Waste Aqui network, which includes individuals and organizations in Texas and New Mexico. Several of our members attended the Tempe meeting, at great expense. Everyone had to fly to the meeting since it was too far to drive. It’s 743 miles to Tempe from Andrews, Texas. Former State Rep. Lon Burnam from Ft. Worth, Humberto Acosta from Andrews, Rose Gardner from Eunice and Noel Marquez from Artesia, NM, and I joined others from New Mexico at the Tempe meeting. I was also able to attend the Minneapolis meeting and listened to several other meetings through internet. Our comments address the questions that you have asked as well as some that should have been asked. They include: 1) How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair? 2) What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process? 3) Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role? 4) What information and
    [Show full text]
  • 1The APA Waives the United States' Sovereign Immunity for Purposes Of
    Case 2:07-cv-00526-DME Document 95 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH Civil Action No. 07-cv-0526-DME-DON: SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS, and PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA DANIEL DAVIS, Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior, CHAD CALVERT, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, C. STEPHEN ALLRED, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management, Defendants. ORDER Plaintiffs, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (“Skull Valley Band”) and Private Fuel Storage, LLC (“PFS”), invoke the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), to obtain review of two decisions made by the Department of Interior (“DOI”) 1) denying a right-of-way application submitted by PFS and 2) disapproving a lease between the Skull Valley Band and PFS. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362,1 the Court VACATES those decisions and REMANDS the right-of-way application and Plaintiffs’ lease to the 1The APA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for purposes of this suit, which seeks injunctive rather than damages relief. See 5 U.S.C. § 702; see also Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir. 2009). 1 Case 2:07-cv-00526-DME Document 95 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 36 DOI for further consideration. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual background The administrative decisions at issue here stem from Plaintiffs’ controversial plan to store spent nuclear fuel (“SNF”) on the Skull Valley Band’s reservation, located in Tooele County, Utah.2 SNF is a byproduct of nuclear generation of power; “[b]ecause SNF remains radioactive for thousands of years, long-term storage strategies are essential.” Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v.
    [Show full text]
  • Document Metadata:DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018
    Document Metadata:DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018 Document Details Docket ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004 Docket Title: Requests for Information: Approaches Involving Private Initiatives for Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities Document File: Docket Phase: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Phase Sequence: 1 Original Document ID: DOE_FRDOC_0001-DRAFT-0473 Current Document ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004-DRAFT-0018 Title: Comment on FR Doc # 2016-26018 Number of Attachments: 3 Document Type: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS Document Subtype: Public Comment Comment on Document ID: DOE-HQ-2017-0004-0001 Comment on Document Title: Requests for Information: Approaches Involving Private Initiatives for Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities Status: Pending_Post Received Date: 01/25/2017 Date Posted: Posting Restriction: No restrictions Submission Type: Web Number of Submissions: 1 Document Optional Details Submitter Info Comment: As we have previously noted, the lead proposals for centralized interim storage (de facto permanent parking lot dumps) are private initiatives (in fact, there are no proposed federal government owned/operated parking lot dumps). But whether PIs or government ISFs (Interim Storage Facilities, so called), they should be free, fully informed, and genuinely consent-based sitings, as the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future recommended in its Final Report in January 2012. For this reason, all of the public comments submitted to DOE during its so-called "consent-based siting" public comment period in 2016 still apply. The lead private initiative is by Waste Control Specialists, LLC in Andrews County, West Texas, followed by the Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance in Hobbs, New Mexico (less than 50 miles from WCS); AFCI in Loving County, TX; and Culberson County, TX.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Fuel Storage: a Public Hazard
    Buyers Up · Congress Watch · Critical Mass · Global Trade Watch · Health Research Group · Litigation Group Joan Claybrook, President Private Fuel Storage: A Public Hazard Private Fuel Storage (PFS) is a consortium of eight commercial nuclear utility companies that have come together with the goal of opening a “temporary” high-level nuclear waste storage facility on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in Skull Valley, Utah, about 45 miles west of Salt Lake City. PFS is led by Xcel Energy; the other seven utilities are: · Southern Nuclear Company · Indiana-Michigan Power Co. (American · Genoa FuelTech Electric Power) · Southern California Edison · Florida Power and Light · Entergy · FirstEnergy Many of the nation’s 103 commercial nuclear reactors are running out of space on site to store “spent” nuclear fuel, which is extremely radioactive, and are looking for storage space to tide them over until the expected opening of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada sometime after 2010. The proposed Private Fuel Storage facility would house up to 4,000 above-ground dry storage casks, containing a total of 44,000 tons of highly-radioactive nuclear waste. Problems with PFS: v The proposed site is located directly underneath the U.S. Air Force flight path from Hill Air Force Base to the Utah Test and Training Range. On March 10, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruled that “PFS has not provided reasonable assurance that F-16 aircraft crash accidents do not pose a significant threat to the facility.”1 An F-16 is a single-engine aircraft with little recourse in the case of engine problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Yucca Mountain: a Post-Mortem Adam J
    Yucca Mountain: A Post-Mortem Adam J. White Imagine the following scenario: The President of the United States deliv- ers a speech on nuclear energy. With gasoline prices high and oil being imported from unfriendly countries, the president says that “a more abun- dant, affordable, and secure energy future” will be a crucial part of getting the nation out of its economic slump. “One of the best potential sources of new electrical energy supplies in the coming decades,” the president notes, “is nuclear power.” But there are obstacles: Nuclear power has become entangled in a morass of regulations that do not enhance safety but that do cause extensive licensing delays and economic uncertainty. Government has also failed in meeting its responsibility to work with industry to develop an acceptable system for commercial waste disposal, which has further hampered nuclear power development. To alleviate these problems, which have caused utilities to shy away from nuclear power, the president issues instructions intended to remove regu- latory hurdles and to “proceed swiftly toward deployment of means of storing and disposing of commercial, high-level radioactive waste.” This scenario, so familiar in its particulars, would not seem out of place in today’s newspapers. But the quoted speech was actually delivered in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. And even though some hoped the speech would mark a turning point — one trade journal celebrated the president for striving to “make a faltering nuclear industry viable and robust again” — nuclear power largely remains, more than three decades later, mired in regulatory uncertainty. While nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the total electricity-generation capacity of the United States, it could satisfy a much greater portion of the national demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating
    Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Request for Information In Support of the Development of a Strategic Plan for the Relocation of Spent Nuclear Fuel to an Offsite Storage Facility Issuance Date: Friday, September 28, 2018 Information Due By: Friday, November 9, 2018 at 5:00 P.M. SONGS Request for Information Supporting Development of Strategic Plan I. Introduction Through this request for information (“RFI”), Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) is seeking information on how an interested consultant would propose supporting SCE in developing a strategic plan for the relocation of spent nuclear fuel from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“SONGS”) to an offsite storage facility (“Strategic Plan”). A. Guiding Principles For Spent Fuel Storage And Disposal SCE is committed to the safe, secure storage of spent nuclear fuel. SCE recognizes that efforts to relocate SONGS spent nuclear fuel offsite must proceed in a thoughtful, forward thinking, and responsible way, ensuring that relevant interests are recognized and heard. To that end, SCE envisions that the development of the Strategic Plan considering the “Commercially Reasonable” options for offsite storage and disposal will be supported by an inclusive approach involving early coordination with relevant stakeholders and effective communication. SCE, and by extension, any consultant successfully selected will promote the fair, balanced treatment and meaningful representation of stakeholders, including local, state, federal, tribal, and environmental interests, in support of the development of the Strategic Plan. II. Background A. Southern California Edison Company SCE, a subsidiary of Edison International (“EIX”), is headquartered in Rosemead, California, and is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, serving approximately 5 million customer accounts in its service area within central and southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: a Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective Approach to Spent Fuel Management
    Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective Approach to Spent Fuel Management The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bunn, Matthew, John P. Holdren, Allison Macfarlane, Susan E. Pickett, Atsuyuki Suzuki, Tatsujiro Suzuki, and Jennifer Weeks. 2001. Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective Approach to Spent Fuel Management. Cambridge: Managing the Atom Project, Harvard University and Project on Sociotechnics of Nuclear Energy, University of Tokyo Published Version http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2150/ interim_storage_of_spent_nuclear_fuel.html Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:29914175 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel A Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective Near-Term Approach to Spent Fuel Management A Joint Report from the Harvard University Project on Managing the Atom and the University of Tokyo Project on Sociotechnics of Nuclear Energy Matthew Bunn Harvard University University of Tokyo John P. Holdren Allison Macfarlane Susan E. Pickett Atsuyuki Suzuki Project on Managing Tatsujiro Suzuki Project on Sociotechnics the Atom of Nuclear Energy Jennifer Weeks June, 2001 Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel A Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective Near-Term Approach to Spent Fuel Management Matthew Bunn John P. Holdren Allison Macfarlane Susan E.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Waste Summary by Tricia Jack, Jordan Robertson
    Article from Policy Perspectives http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod_print_view.cfm?this_id=49934... Article from Policy Perspectives (http://www.imakenews.com/cppa/e_article000499345.cfm?x=b6Gdd3k,b30DNQvw,w) December 12, 2005 Nuclear Waste Summary by Tricia Jack, Jordan Robertson Background The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was established by Congress in 1982 to solve the problem of nuclear waste and made the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) responsible to find, build and operate an underground disposal facility, called a “geologic repository” by January 31, 1998. Between 1983 and 1985, the DOE selected a variety of locations for the repository and reported on them to the president. The president approved 3 sites for intensive studies, one of which was Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In 1987, Congress made an amendment to the Nuclear Policy Waste Act and directed the U.S. Department of Energy to study only the Yucca Mountain site. By 2002, the US Senate approved the development of a geologic repository in Yucca Mountain, and President Bush signed the bill allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository for nuclear waste. However, government officials soon recognized that they would not meet the 1998 storage deadline passed by Congress. In the early 1990s, the DOE sought applications from communities and Indian tribes for grants to study the possibility of temporarily accepting nuclear waste until a permanent site could be built. The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians in Utah responded to the request and accepted two grants totaling $300,000 to conduct studies on storing nuclear waste on their tribal lands.
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN C. CRUDEN Acting Assistant Attorney General R. LEE
    Case 2:07-cv-00526-DME Document 83 Filed 08/07/09 Page 1 of 48 JOHN C. CRUDEN Acting Assistant Attorney General R. LEE LEININGER U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division 1961 Stout Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80294 (303) 844-1364 [email protected] KRISTOFOR R. SWANSON U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 663 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 305-0248 [email protected] BRETT L. TOLMAN United States Attorney JEANNETTE F. SWENT Assistant U.S. Attorney, USB # 6043 185 South State Street, #300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 325-3220 Attorneys for Federal Defendants IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION ____________________________________ ) SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE ) INDIANS, et al., ) Case No 2:07CV00526-DME-DN ) Plaintiffs,)DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE BRIEF ) ON THE MERITS v. ) ) Senior Circuit Judge David M. Ebel LAURA DANIEL DAVIS, et al.,) ) Defendants.) ____________________________________) TABLE OF CONTENTS Case 2:07-cv-00526-DME Document 83 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 48 INTRODUCTION .............................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................1 STATUTORY & REGULATORY BACKGROUND ................................11 I. Indian Long-Term Leasing Act ............................................11 II. Federal Land Policy and Management Act...................................12 III. National Environmental Policy Act .........................................12 STANDARD
    [Show full text]