[ RadSafe ] Notification: House Approves Planning for Interim Nuclear Waste Storage and Reprocessing

[John Jacobus]

This may be of interest.

-----Original Message-----
From: fyi at aip.org [mailto:fyi at aip.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:38 PM
To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)
Subject: FYI #82: Nuclear Waste Storage and
Reprocessing

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science
Policy News Number 82: June 1, 2005

House Approves Planning for Interim Nuclear Waste
Storage and Reprocessing

The transport and interim storage of commercial spent
nuclear fuel at centralized sites and its eventual
reprocessing was given a significant boost on May 24
during House consideration of the FY 2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill. 
Representatives rejected an amendment to reduce
funding for the planning of these activities by a vote
of almost 3-to-1.

The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee included extensive language regarding the
disposition of spent nuclear fuel in House Report
109-086 that accompanied H.R. 2419.  It is evident
from the report and from floor debate that 
appropriators are dissatisfied with the status quo,
and are using this funding bill to change the current
policy of on-site spent fuel storage at nuclear plants
while awaiting eventual disposal at a permanent
repository.  The report speaks of the current system
as creating "a costly and unnecessary security risk." 
It predicts that initial operations at the Yucca
Mountain repository might be delayed until the later
half of the next decade, estimating that it costs the
federal government $1 billion for every year of delay.
The report states that the waste produced by 2010
would fully utilize Yucca Mountain's authorized
capacity, necessitating a second repository.

Appropriators outlined two steps that DOE should take
in nonbinding report language.  First, "the Committee
believes the Department should move aggressively to
take title to commercial spent fuel and consolidate
such fuel in a smaller number of more secure,
above-ground interim storage facilities located at
existing DOE facilities." "[P]ossible alternative DOE
sites include Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River, all
of which presently store government-owned spent fuel
and high level waste and both of which already have
extensive security measures in place."  If these sites
are found to be impracticable, DOE should investigate
"other federally-owned sites, closed military bases,
and non-federal fuel storage facilities."  An
implementation plan must be prepared by DOE within 120
days of the bill's enactment.

The report contains extensive language on nuclear fuel
reprocessing.  "[T]he Committee directs the Department
to prepare an integrated spent fuel recycling plan for
implementation in fiscal year 2007, including
selection of an advanced reprocessing technology and a
competitive process to select one or more sites to
develop integrated spent fuel recycling facilities
(i.e., reprocessing, preparation of mixed oxide fuel,
vitrification of high level waste products, and
temporary process storage," the report declares.   The
report cites the PUREX reprocessing technology used in
some European countries, and says, "There is no
evidence that these reprocessing operations pose a
significant proliferation risk."    New nuclear
reactors will also reduce dependence on imported
fossil fuels, the appropriators said.

When the House considered the appropriations bill,
Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA), Rush Holt (D-NJ) and
Jay Inslee (D-WA) offered an amendment to transfer
$15.5 million that is to be used for reprocessing and
interim storage programs to energy efficiency
programs.  Markey told his colleagues that "this is a
huge moment," and argued that reprocessing increases
the opportunities for nuclear proliferation, is
unsafe, is too expensive, and that the money would
be better spent for other programs.    Holt argued
"Such a step must not be taken lightly, with no
hearings, no authorizing legislation, no public input,
no analysis of the implications for nuclear
proliferation, not even an analysis of the cost to
taxpayers."  Appropriations subcommittee chairman
David Hobson (R-OH) disagreed, saying "This country
would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of
new technologies."

The House voted against the amendment: 110 yes to 312
no (see http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll207.xml ) 
The bill now moves to the Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by
Pete Domenici (R-NM).  Domenici has actively promoted
nuclear energy, and it would not be surprising if he
accepts Hobson's strategy on the storage and
reprocessing of spent fuel.

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi at aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail