How do we meet the Challenge of SNF and HLW.

How Do We Meet the Challenge of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High Level Waste?: by Mark J. Carter

As of December 2011 more than 67,000 metric tons of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) was in temporary storage within the United States. This SNF is stored onsite at both operating and decommissioned plants. This is expected to increase at a rate of about 2,000 metric tons per year. (1)

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) was passed in 1982 and was amended in 2008.

The 1982 NWPA established the intent and method of funding the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository which was never opened. (1,2)

Under the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 the Nuclear Power Plant Operators pay 1 tenth of one cent into The Nuclear Waste Fund for each kilowatt hour of energy sold.(3) In return the US taxpayer, through their agent, the Department of Energy, takes financial and physical responsibility for the security, transportation, processing, and storage of all SNF and all High Level Waste (HLW) related to commercial operations. (4) This includes plant infrastructure that meets the definition of High Level Waste at the end of plant life cycle. (5)

Although the 1982 law allowed the government to review the adequacy of the one mil per KWH payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund; the "NWPA Amendment Act 2008" forbids raising these fees above one mil per KWH. (6)

The "NWPA Amendment Act of 2008" also eliminates consideration of environmental impact of onsite storage when it concerns the issuance, amendment, or renewal of a license to construct or operate a facility. In addition, it exempts the plants from state mandated clean air standards. (7)

Under the contracts provided for by law, the US Tax Payer was to begin taking possession of SNF and HLW materials in 1998. Since the United States of America, as well as all other nations, has failed to develop permanent repositories for these wastes, the United States Tax Payers were forced to breach their contractual agreement to take possession of these materials. Since 1998 the Nuclear Power Plant operators have been suing the United States Taxpayer to recover the costs of storing the SNF and HLW. (4)

A single Nuclear Power Plant Operator in Minnesota recently settled for 100 million dollars to cover the cost of storing SNF and HLW generated by two reactors. This settlement covered a 10 year period of storage with further litigation and settlements expected. This 100 million dollar judgment is a small percentage of what has already been paid, or is under appeal, regarding other Nuclear Plant Operations. (8)

These judicatory awards are not paid out of the Nuclear Waste Fund; but out of the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund. This Judgment "has no fiscal year limitations, and there is no need for the Congress to appropriate money to replenish it." (9)

As of July 31, 2012 the Nuclear Waste Fund balance was $49,474,000,000 which includes interest payments to the fund. (10)

Is permanent onsite storage a better solution than centralized sites? If so, then could the Nuclear Waste Fund rather than the Judgment Fund be used to finance current storage?

Would repealing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, returning the funds with accrued interest, and requiring the industry to pay this very significant business cost encourage the industry to accelerate new technologies and processes promised by industry pundits?

Would this result in a more economically efficient Nuclear Power Industry?

Does the Nuclear Waste Policy Act give the Nuclear Energy Industry an unfair competitive advantage over other forms of energy production?

Was the court ruling requiring settlement funding be made from the U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund instead of the Nuclear Waste Fund a fair and equitable ruling for the American Tax Payer?

Would bringing the Nuclear Power Industry to a business competitive level of self support be in everyone's long term interest?

References:

1. Congressional Reporting Service Report to Congress - U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage - May 24, 2012.

2. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 - section 111 (b) (1)

3. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 - section 302

4. Congressional Budget Office Testimony - Statement of Kim Cawley Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimate Unit - The Federal Governments Liabilities Under The Nuclear Waste Policy Act. October 4, 2007

5. Amendment to NWPA 2008 - section 105 - 12 ( C )

6. NWPA Amendment Act 2008 - section 204

7. Amendment to NWPA 2008 - Section 104 (2) and Section 201

8. Before The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission - Docket Number - E-002/M-11-807 - December 16, 2011 - Section II.

9. Congressional Budget Office Testimony - Statement of Kim Cawley Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimate Unit - The Federal Governments Liabilities Under The Nuclear Waste Policy Act. October 4, 2007 - Section - "The Judgment Fund."

10. U.S. Treasury Monthly Statement of Public Debt of The United States - July 31, 2012