#1Joint Minerals, Business & Economic Development interim Committee - Nov. 5, 2019 - Casper LANDS Does Nuclear Waste Storage Make Sense for Wyoming? An analysis of financial, legal, political and safety concerns. PUBLIC WILDLIFE Wyoming Outdoor Council CLEAN AIR O CLEAN WATER Prepared by the Wyoming Outdoor Council 262 Lincoln Street Lander, WY 82520 307-332-7031 1#2What kind of waste are spent fuel rods? When fuel rods in a nuclear reactor are no longer usable, they are removed from the reactor core and put into pools of water to cool. The rods are still highly radioactive and continue to generate significant heat for decades. After about 5 years of cooling in pools, the spent fuel is moved into dry cask storage. This nuclear waste is extremely dangerous. Unshielded, it can give off a lethal dose of radiation in seconds. The time scale needed for the radiotoxicity of the spent fuel to drop to the level of natural uranium is very long, approximately 200,000-300,000 years. Spent fuel rods from commercial reactors are regulated under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This law requires that the waste be isolated from the public in a permanent repository for 10,000 years. Spent fuel is classified as a "high-level radioactive waste" and our nation's rules for implementing the NWPA can be found in 40 CFR Part 191. 2#3Background on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act established a multi-site evaluation process for selecting 2 permanent disposal sites. The Department of Energy (DOE) was to study 5 potential deep geological disposal sites, recommend 3 by 1985, and then study 5 more and recommend 3 by 1989, as possible locations for a second repository. The Act also included a study on the need for a temporary storage facility, called monitored retrievable storage (MRS) involving at least 3 different locations. It also allowed a state to veto a facility, but Congress it could override that state veto. Due to strong opposition from many states under study for a permanent site or MRS, in 1987 the Act was amended, identifying Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only site for a permanent repository. The amendments also provided for an optional MRS, but only with restrictions tying it to the development of a permanent facility. Due to strong opposition from Nevada, the Yucca Mountain effort was halted in 2010. Licensing work was temporarily revived for this site but has ceased again due to lack of funding. In 2010 the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was convened by the Secretary of Energy to review policies and recommend a new national strategy. The Commission's report, published in 2012, was adopted by the DOE, but its recommendations have not been implemented. 3#4What funding is available for storage or disposal of nuclear waste? The NWPA established a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of fees levied against nuclear- electric utilities to pay for the costs of constructing and operating a permanent repository. This fund has grown to $43 billion (FY 2017). The Act authorizes a schedule of financial benefits which states are entitled to if hosting a DOE-operated interim storage facility, or MRS. These include: $5 million a year during startup and construction $10 million a year once wastes are accepted States are required to transfer no less than 1/3 of the financial benefits to local governments. There is no federally authorized direct payment to states for non-DOE storage facilities, such as privately owned or state-owned facilities. The NWPA also provides funding and technical assistance for training public safety officials to states and tribes whose jurisdictions would be traversed by shipments of spent fuel to a storage or disposal facility. These funds are only for the DOE facilities. 4#5More about the money.... In the NWPA, the federal government was required to take custody of commercial nuclear waste in 1998. Due to failure to meet this deadline, the industry sued and the DOE has been paying for on-site storage costs at reactor sites. According to FY'16 figures, the DOE paid $6.1 billion in damages and has projected future liabilities of $24.7 billion. Congress has a history of withholding funding for the program, even when authorized under the Act, due to the failure to resolve controversies. For example, Congress has not approved the funding requested in the 2017 and 2018 budgets for the DOE to resume licensing of the Yucca Mt. disposal site and a possible MRS. Current federal budget rules and laws make it impossible for the nuclear waste program to have assured access to the fees being collected from nuclear utilities to finance the commercial share of of the waste program's expenses. Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, 2012, Report to the Secretary of Energy 5#6History of political uncertainty with the federal government For more than 50 years, our nation has struggled to address disposal of nuclear waste. Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu called it "one of our nation's most intractable challenges." Over the years, Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, Georgia, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin have opposed "interim" or permanent storage of these wastes in their states. Much of this opposition has been grounded in the lack of trust and certainty with the federal government, based on a record of broken promises, missed timelines, changing scientific guidelines, political interference and disregard of state input. A successful waste management strategy will need consistent policy, funding, and leadership, especially since any strategy will take decades to implement. U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2017, Disposal of High-level Nuclear Waste Issue Summary Are we willing to ignore the experience history would provide us for the siren song of promised economic benefits and a policy that is clearly a moving target. As Governor, I am not. ...I am absolutely unpersuaded that Wyoming can rely on the assurances we receive from the federal government....there can be no guarantees or even assurances that the federal government's attitudes or policies will be the same one, five, ten or 50 years from now. We have seen the roller coaster ride of federal involvement and attitudes. - Governor Mike Sullivan, 1992, MRS veto letter 6#7There is no guarantee storage will be temporary Once a "temporary" facility is constructed, it is likely to become a de facto permanent repository for these wastes. There are no legal, political, or financial mechanisms to ensure waste would ever be removed. This is because there is no permanent disposal solution for this waste, despite decades of efforts by the federal government. In 1987 Congress amended the NWPA to link the operation of an interim facility to milestones of progress with the permanent repository precisely to prevent such a de facto situation. In fact, many experts warn that if such a "temporary" site were approved anywhere, it would likely halt the politically difficult effort of creating a permanent disposal solution. There is no need for temporary nuclear waste storage. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that spent nuclear fuels can be safely stored at the reactor sites for 100+ years. Our experience in Congress in 1987 should warn everyone of the possibility of an MRS facility becoming a de facto repository. Should the Yucca Mt. site prove unsuitable, the existence of an MRS facility would make it almost politically irresistible to remove restrictions on timing for acceptance of waste - because in doing so citizens from other regions and their elected representatives could ensure that their area would not be considered to host a repository. The singling out of Nevada in 1987 is amble illustration of this. - U.S. Rep. James Clark (NC) before the MRS Review Commission 7#8Transportation = safety & technical risks The frequency and distance of nuclear waste shipments and the quantity of waste required for an interim facility will be far greater than any our country has experienced in the past. Some experts estimate more than 100,000 shipments would be transported over 38 years, depending on the size of the facility. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission states they have conducted 1,000s of spent fuel shipments, their record is based on relatively short distances from the reactor to nearby storage, or small quantities transported for research to DOE labs: Most of these shipments occur between different reactors owned by the same utility to share storage space for spent fuel, or they may be shipped to a research facility to perform tests on the spent fuel itself. In the near future, because of a potential high-level waste repository being built, the number of these shipments by road and rail is expected to increase. - NRC webpage at https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel- transp.html The transportation of large amounts of spent fuel to an interim storage or permanent disposal location is inherently complex and the planning and implementation may take decades to accomplish. US GAO Report, 2015, Spent Nuclear Fuel - Legislative, Technical and Societal Challenges to its Transportation As of 2019, there are 81 active Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities (ISFSF) in the U.S. Three are DOE sites and the rest are co-located at reactors, at decommissioned reactor sites, or near by. According to a State of Utah analysis, "12 dry-cask storage sites are located within 3,300 feet of the waste originating reactor." 8#9Transportation concerns, continued... "However, there are a number of social and institutional challenges to the successful initial implementation of large-quantity shipping programs." - National Academies of Sciences The federal government has failed to adopt important recommendations for ensuring the safe transport of these wastes, including those from the National Academies of Sciences, the Western Governors' Association, the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, and the Blue Ribbon Commission. Recommendations include: • ● • • Conduct full-scale testing of actual types of casks to be used for transportation. (Videos of crash tests promoted by proponents are scale models of out-dated casks.) Update safety standards to include long-duration fire scenarios, measures to prevent such incidents & surveys of routes to identify such potential long-duration hazards. Develop a comprehensive transportation plan and criteria for route selection. Conduct a thorough review of the risks of sabotage and terrorism along routes and ensure adequate safeguards are in place. Provide technical assistance and funding to states for a tracking system, enhanced emergency response, shipment escorts, and inspections. A recent government report notes several other problems with transportation, including the safety of transporting high burn-up spent nuclear fuel, "hot" waste that does not meet the safety criteria for transportation, and inadequate transportation infrastructure for heavy rail car casks. 9#10. Other Concerns - legal and our economy A federal "temporary" storage facility for spent nuclear fuel is not legal under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Interim storage is only authorized when tied to milestones in the development of a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. This law would need to be changed by Congress. Funding for financial benefits to host states, for transportation planning and first responder training and assistance for states is not authorized from the Nuclear Waste Fund for non-DOE facilities. Congressional legislation would be needed to allow the use of federal funding for waste transportation and storage. Nuclear waste storage can harm our state's image for tourism, agriculture, our pristine outdoor environment and diversifying our economy. Our state's ENDOW Report reflects years of study and millions of dollars and does not recommend such a facility. Studies in states where such facilities have been proposed (Tennessee, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada) confirm this negative impact to tourism, attracting new residents, agricultural products, diversification of businesses, and property values. The National Academies of Sciences notes the potential of transportation routes to lower property values. 10#11Wyoming has a record of opposition to nuclear waste storage In 1991 the U.S. Department of Energy proposed constructing an MRS facility in Wyoming. Gov. Mike Sullivan ended the project a year later, citing numerous concerns that are still applicable today. In a 1994 University of Wyoming poll, 80.4 percent of Wyoming residents said they would oppose building a nuclear waste storage facility in the state. In 1995 the Wyoming Legislature created a specific law to regulate private and federal nuclear waste storage facilities, resulting in Article 15 of the Environmental Quality Act. In 1998 a private company wanted to build a facility to store nuclear waste in Wyoming. Gov. Jim Geringer refused permission for a preliminary feasibility study, as outlined under Wyoming's law, ending the proposal. 11#12• . Nuclear Waste Storage Does Not Make Sense for Wyoming There's little money in it: $5-10 million/year if a DOE facility; none guaranteed otherwise. Congress has a record of withholding funding. There's no trustworthy record with the federal government. We'd have to hope the federal government will change its ways and be reliable despite a 50 year record of broken promises, missed timelines, changing policies and political uncertainty. There is no such thing as "temporary" when a permanent facility does not exist. Congress would need to act to address legalities and financial concerns. Transportation concerns are real and remain unanswered; the federal government has not heeded reasonable improvements requested by states and others. • It could hurt Wyoming businesses and future economic diversification. Wyoming people have repeatedly opposed this proposal. We don't need to study it again. 12#13Resources Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, 2012, Report to the Secretary of Energy State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, 2012, Stakeholder Transportation Scorecard: Reviewing Nevada's Recommendations for Enhancing the Safety and Security of Nuclear Waste State of Nevada, Agency for Nuclear Projects, 2011, Repository Transportation Planning, Risk Management, And Public Acceptance: Lessons Learned State of Wyoming, Governor Jim Geringer, April 1 1998, letter to Owl Creek Energy Project State of Wyoming, University of Wyoming, 1994, Annual Wyoming Voter Poll State of Wyoming, Governor Mike Sullivan, April 21 1992, letter to Fremont County Commissioners The National Academies of Sciences, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, 2006, Going the Distance? The Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste in the United States Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 2016, Opposition to High-Level Radioactive Waste Fact Sheet U.S. Congress, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 10101 and following • U.S. Department of Energy, 2013, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel And High-level Radioactive Waste U.S. DOE, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1986, Physical and decay characteristics of commercial LWR spent fuel U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2017, Disposal of High-level Nuclear Waste, 2017 Issue Summary U.S. GAO, 2015, Spent Nuclear Fuel - Legislative, Technical, and Societal Challenges to its Transportation U.S. GAO, 2014, Spent Nuclear Fuel Management U.S. MRS Review Commission, 1989, Nuclear Waste: Is There Need for Federal Interim Storage? U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2019, Current U.S. Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Map as of April 12, 2019 U.S. NRC, 2014, 10 CFR Part 51 [NRC-2012-0246] RIN 3150-AJ20 Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel - Final rule. Western Governor's Association, 2018, Policy Resolution 2018-10- Transportation, Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Radioactive Materials and Spent Nuclear Fuel • U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2018, Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal U.S. CRS, 2012, U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage 13