Development
of Nuclear Waste Storage as an Environmentally Sustainable Option
Garrett Goldberg and Sean Malone
EDGE March 14, 2003
As the world's population grows and living standards improve in the future, energy consumption will rise, even if energy is consumed in a more rational way than it is today. The use of nuclear power grew steadily between 1970 and 1990, reflecting the rapidly rising demand for electricity along with the desire of certain countries that lacked fossil-fuel resources, like France and Japan, to ensure their energy independence. Another factor was that fossil fuels were expensive, which made nuclear energy very competitive. Over a span of 30 years, this new energy has come to supply one-third of the European Union's electricity. It has enabled France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Spain and Switzerland to satisfy demand and increase their energy independence. The United States is the country with the most nuclear power plants, having roughly the same number as Western Europe. In Asia, nuclear energy is an increasingly important source of power. This is especially true in the industrialized countries that are registering sustained economic growth and, like some countries in Western Europe, lack primary energy resources. China has undertaken a large nuclear power program, despite its vast coal reserves. In the four major East Asian countries (Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan), there are 18 Gigawatts (Gwe) of generating capacity under construction, on order or being planned.
If nuclear energy is to be used more widely, a number of favorable conditions must be united and obstacles overcome. It is also understood that nuclear energy can be developed only in countries with the technological and financial capacities to provide the essential conditions of safety and security. Nevertheless, nuclear energy is one of the few industries that have to confront movements opposed to its very existence. One reason for this opposition is that the military use of nuclear energy has led to misunderstanding, which has been kept alive more or less intentionally. In fact, civil and military activities in this domain are separate, and there is no known case of proliferation originating in the nuclear fuel industry, although recent suspicions have arisen regarding North Korea.
Another reason for opposition is concern about radioactivity. Because radioactivity is invisible and can cause long-term effects if absorbed in high doses, people can imagine long-term effects far greater than anything actually realized. Thus, nuclear waste is a subject that nuclear energy's opponents focus on in their communication to stir fears in the public. The wastes produced in generating electricity by other means seem to worry them much less. Yet, in terms of volume, nuclear waste accounts for only a tiny fraction of all the industrial wastes produced each year in a country like France.
Nuclear energy's future will depend on decisions that take into account economic, industrial, environmental, social and political factors and that are made with a long-term vision. Reliance on nuclear energy can come only through a long-term process, in the framework of a global energy policy that is stable over time and that generates some degree of consensus. Greater reliance on nuclear energy is a way to ease energy constraints at the global level. By reducing the industrialized nations' dependence on fossil fuels, it helps facilitate the supply of energy to developing countries, which will not have access to nuclear power in the short term. It is also a means to wage a broad-scale battle against the greenhouse effect. Nuclear energy has a place in a policy of sustainable development.
This paper delves into the development of nuclear energy and storage of nuclear waste as an ongoing interaction between government and environmental agencies. Specifically, we will explore the issue of spent nuclear fuel storage, and use the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory as a case study for how such interaction can lead to progress pertaining to safe nuclear waste storage. We will compare this development to the COGEMA La Hague nuclear plant in France and also explore the future of nuclear energy and the ties that technological development have with environmentally safe nuclear plants. Ultimately, we wish to prove that nuclear energy can be an environmentally safe option, but a significant amount of communication and compromise is required in order for that dream to be manifested into a reality.
Introduction
To INEEL
The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is located about 20 miles west of the city of Idaho Falls in southeast Idaho and has been the subject of much environmental debate over the last 15 years. Home to many radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel storage facilities, INEEL operations result in toxic air, water, and soil emissions that are potentially harmful to humans, the surrounding wildlife, and plant species. Overlying the Snake River Plain, INEEL is home to two federally endangered species of animals and several plant species identified as “sensitive, rare, or unique.”[1] Saving this precious environment has caused much anguish on the part of the state of Idaho, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting in a great deal of legislation and compromise between the federal and state governments.
Through this research we will trace the legal history of the INEEL from its roots as an injunction by the governor of Idaho to a massive Settlement Agreement reached between the DOE and state. We will discus the subsequent environmental action taken by the parties involved and explain how the INEEL came to be the toxic storage facility that it is known as today by most of the citizens of Idaho. In the end we hope to show that one can look at the events surrounding the Idaho Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Laboratory over the last 15 years as a positive experience, balancing the powers of the state of Idaho against the DOE, and realizing that remarkable cleanup efforts can be accomplished and that environmental policy and management is a top priority for both federal and state governments.
The INEEL (initially INEL) began its nuclear involvement in 1949 under the guidance of the federal government. Originally named the National Reactor Testing Station, INEEL was designed to be a remote site where prototype nuclear reactors could be designed, built and tested.[3] However as the amount of radioactive waste began to accumulate from these newly built reactors, something had to be done to take proper care of this spent nuclear fuel. In 1952, the federal government was forced to establish the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) on the grounds of INEEL to store the growing amount of highly toxic substances.[4] This waste required special handling and disposal that could be completed quite easily at INEEL due to its vast open spaces and lack of population.
Soon after, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began shipment of radioactive waste from outside Idaho to INEEL and as a result, INEEL expanded its storage capabilities to contain the increasing waste. In 1957, three years after the shipments began from the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Complex in Colorado, the AEC expanded the Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) from 13 acres to its present size of 88 acres and began to store transuranic wastes above ground.[5] This initial movement to store wastes other than those generated on site has since become the focus of much controversy and has led to the current situation of leaking waste and environmental harm. INEEL subsequently became a national leader for storage of nuclear wastes and assumed this position with the Department of Energy rather than continuing solely with increasing research and development of reactors.[6] Although many more tests and reactors would be completed at INEEL in the next few decades, the storage of high-level radioactive waste became the focus of operations.
The conversion of INEEL to a full-scale storage and treatment facility was emphasized during the early 80’s and 90’s through ongoing interaction with the Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power Plant. On March 28th, 1979, the TMI plant suffered a partial meltdown that terrified both the employees of the facility and the Department of Energy. According to Roger Mattson, the then director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the employees of TMI noticed a 28-pound pressure spike that signaled a hydrogen explosion within the reactor. This caused the core to be exposed for a prolonged period of time, allowing high levels of radioactivity to escape into the air and water.[7] In addition, much of the nuclear fuel was damaged when the top third of the reactor was uncovered and was without cooling water for 11 hours.[8] All these factors led to the immediate ‘cold shutdown’ of the TMI plant. As recovery and investigation began, the INEEL stepped in to play a leading role in assisting the DOE and TMI owners. INEEL technicians assisted them in the accident analysis and recovery as well as the storage of nuclear waste generated by the meltdown. After the disaster, TMI went through an extensive four-year cleanup plan that included shipping the core debris and spent nuclear fuel to the INEEL by train.[9] As these shipments arrived, space to store the high level nuclear waste became an issue at the INEEL, commencing their problems with waste affecting the surrounding environment.
What is High Level Nuclear
Waste?[10]
Before one can understand the precautions and debate surrounding the spent nuclear fuel arriving at INEEL, one must understand what constitutes high-level nuclear waste. According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the majority of high-level radioactive waste is the [used] fuel from the hot core of commercial nuclear power plants such as TMI.[11] The most intensely radioactive fuel on the planet is the irradiated fuel that can give a lethal dose of radiation if unshielded. This fuel is stored in water pools at places such as INEEL and is about one million more times more radioactive than before it was used.[12] The INEEL itself defines high-level waste as containing long-lived radionuclides and hazardous substances such as acids, caustics, metals and organic solvents that require permanent isolation for disposal.[13] Classification of this waste has been an ongoing problem in the U.S. that needs reassessment and traditionally limits itself to the aforementioned irradiated fuel and the liquid and sludge from reprocessing this fuel to recover plutonium.[14] Regardless, there are only a few facilities such as INEEL that have the capabilities to store this material and are thus forced to shoulder the load of storage and treatment, regardless of what the environmental harms may amount to. As one will see, storing this material is no easy task and requires much legislation, debate, and cost to make it environmentally sound.
The legal history surrounding INEEL is both complicated and ongoing, testing the powers of states, governors, and the federal government. In the early part of February 1991, the Department of Energy and the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) notified the then governor of Idaho, Cecil D. Andrus, that pursuant to a contract between the DOE and PSC, spent nuclear fuel would be shipped from the Fort St. Vrain nuclear reactor into Idaho to be stored at INEEL.[15] In response to this notification, Andrus wrote a letter to PSC serving as “an official notification…that shipments of radio-active waste material from the Fort St. Vrain facility in Colorado would not be accepted in the state of Idaho.”[16] Andrus continued his letter stating, “We are prepared to take all appropriate steps to prevent these shipments from entering the state of Idaho. I respectfully suggest that you immediately contact the U.S. Department of Energy to begin the process of finding an alternative storage site.”[17] Although Governor Andrus was aware of a prior history of these shipments without incident, he refused to allow the shipments of waste into Idaho, questioning the authority of the federal government over that of his state.
Following Governor Andrus’ letter, PSC and the DOE filed separate claims against the state, seeking a Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Summary Judgment, respectively.[18] PSC’s motion requested the court to enjoin the state from taking any action to ban or prevent Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel from entering Idaho and from being transported on the highways of Idaho.[19] The DOE’s motion requested that the court, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, forbid the state from interfering with the shipments to INEEL.[20] Later consolidated, the preliminary motions of PSC and the DOE were denied. Citing Hall v. Hawaii, the court believed that, “Summary Judgment should certainly not be granted where there are relevant facts remaining to be discovered.”[21] In sum, the court ordered a hearing on both motions, focusing on the merits of the issues arising under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. The defendant was then given time to reply to the motions before the court reconvened on May 7th 1991 in Boise, Idaho.[22]
In the subsequent case of Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus, the court eventually found that “Governor Andrus, individually and acting on behalf of the state of Idaho, should be enjoined from further interference with shipments for Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel to INEEL.”[23] In this response, Governor Andrus contended that his rights to enjoin PSC and the DOE “are predicated on Idaho’s right (as a state) to the protections of federal law.”[24] However in his response, he failed to address any of the merits of the plaintiff’s motions, essentially invoking no legal authority to justify his prior actions. Moreover, he stated that the neither the DOE nor PSC can show any act committed by Idaho to block the proposed shipments.[25] This new position completely ignored his earlier threats to not allow the shipments on state roads and to use police force if necessary. Andrus completely abandoned his earlier rationale, instead refocusing on his counterclaim that he could defeat both motions on the basis of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) violations.
The court, unimpressed with Governor Andrus’ new attempts to block incoming waste, effectively cited Illinois v. General Electric Co. when it stated that “nuclear wastes have to be stored somewhere, and that the place of storage should be chosen without regard to the parochial interests of the states.”[26] The Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause are designed to prevent this sort of parochial action taken by Governor Andrus and thus, the court disregarded his previous actions and claims, refocusing the rest of the case on his counterclaim of NEPA violations.
In carefully examining Governor Andrus’ counterclaim, the court required an actual dispute of facts against the NEPA and federal government to deny entry of the spent nuclear waste. Citing United States v. Allen, the court states: “In order successfully to oppose a motion for summary judgment, a party may not rely solely on conclusory allegations in the pleadings … but must, instead, offer some evidence at least outlining a factual dispute.”[27] For Andrus to have defeated the United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment, he needed to go beyond the assertions in his original counterclaim and designate facts showing that there is an issue for trial; Governor Andrus did not do this and as a result, summary judgment was granted to the United States.[28]
With respect to PSC’s motion for Preliminary Injunction, Governor Andrus falls short as well. In the Allen case, the court found that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show one of two things. It must show either the likelihood of success of the injunction on the merits and possibility of irreparable injury, or the existence of serious questions going to the merits and balance of hardships tipping in its favor.[29] The court, after examining these two facts, found both the tipping of hardships in PSC’s favor[30] and that based on the merits of the earlier find in the case of United States v. Cecil D. Andrus, granting summary judgment in favor of PSC seems appropriate.[31] In this case, the court could not overlook the Supremacy Clause or the Commerce Clause, both of which Governor Andrus violated. In addition, he must have provided evidence for his counterclaim and although his position was politically understandable, it completely violated the Constitution and possessed no support within the law. The court granted both summary judgment to the United States and a motion for preliminary injunction to PSC, and enjoined Governor Andrus from interfering with the shipments of spent nuclear fuel from Fort St. Vrain to INEEL.[32]
The final chapter in the dispute between the state of Idaho and the Federal Government dealt with reaching an agreement about which and how much nuclear waste could be stored at INEEL. Concerning the limitations of both federal and state powers, this agreement would be monumental in deciding who gained control of future nuclear involvement in Idaho. After reaching the Fort St. Vrain agreement in 1991, the court issued another injunction in 1993 in response to claims that these shipments were further harming the environment. This injunction temporarily stopped incoming shipments of spent nuclear fuel until the DOE issued an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the effects on the natural and human environment surrounding the INEEL.[33] In the 1995 case of Public Service Company of Colorado and United States of America v. Phillip E. Batt, the court upheld the 1993 ruling, stating that “The injunction against any further shipments of any more spent nuclear fuel of any type to the INEEL … shall remain in full force and effect unless and until the Department of Energy issues a record of decision based upon the EIS required by the order of June 28, 1993.”[34] The Department of Energy was to prepare this report concerning “all major federal actions involving the transportation, receipt, and storage of spent nuclear fuel the INEEL.”[35]
The court
continued by observing that once the comprehensive Environmental Impact
Statement is completed, reviewed, and any challenges are brought forth, an
agreement can be reached.[36] Although the United States would then file
an emergency motion to permit 12 shipments of Naval spent nuclear fuel to the
INEEL, the court held true to its earlier ruling and denied the motion until
the DOE issued the EIS.[37] No shipments would be made to the INEEL
between the closing of Public Service Company of Colorado and United
States of America v. Phillip E. Batt and the signing of an agreement
The second alternative suggested in the EIS (Alternative B), outlines a ten-year plan that includes management of current environmental management and waste restoration facilities as well as the implementation of new projects for the years 1995 –2005. Under Alternative B, “enhanced activities would be needed to comply with regulations and agreements and would result from acceptance of offsite materials and waste.”[41] Overall waste generation at INEEL would increase due to more decontamination and decommissioning, and more spent nuclear fuel would be received from other DOE sites.[42] As compared to Alternative A, onsite waste management would emphasize greater treatment and disposal capabilities and conduct all planned projects concerning the Waste Area Groups (WAG).[43] Alternative B seems to be the most viable and conciliatory of the four alternatives. However, we will now discuss the other two, more extreme options.
Alternative C, labeled the Minimum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Plan, seeks to remove all waste management activities from the grounds of INEEL. This plan would essentially transfer all materials and waste to other locations[44] to “the extent possible,” phase out the spent nuclear fuel handling facilities at INEEL, and stop shipments of waste from offsite sources.[45] In addition, wastes generated onsite would be shipped to other locations. The treatments of WAG’s would continue as planned and all current regulations and expectations would be met.[46] Perhaps this alternative was what Governor Andrus had in mind in 1991 when he banned spent nuclear fuel from entering the state of Idaho. However it seems that the INEEL had gone in the opposite direction in the prior years. With increasing storage capability and the level of assistance offered in the TMI crisis, the INEEL was looking toward expansion rather than reduction. Although eliminating nuclear waste from the Snake River Plain is a politically favorable position, it may not suit the needs of either the DOE or other spent fuel sites in the future.
Finally, Alternative D[47] sought the opposite course of action, transferring spent nuclear fuel to the INEEL from other disposal sites. The acceptance of spent nuclear fuel would be maximized and wastes generated from environmental restoration and waste management would be increased more so than in the other alternatives. The implementation of additional projects not yet defined for cleanup would be necessary and emphasis would be placed maximum waste generation and storage at INEEL.[48] This alternative seems far too difficult to accomplish considering INEEL’s current capabilities and goals, instead focusing on building new structures to hold additional waste currently being stored elsewhere. Neither the DOE nor the state of Idaho found this to be an acceptable plan in itself when reaching an agreement, and instead formed their own Settlement Agreement. The ensuing document finally brought to a close the ongoing litigation started by Governor Andrus and continued by Governor Batt, satisfying the DOE, INEEL, and the state of Idaho.
Pursuant to the agreement reached in Public Service Company of Colorado and United States of America v. Phillip E. Batt, the DOE and the state of Idaho could now settle on the specifics of spent nuclear fuel entering, leaving, and being stored at INEEL. This agreement would set the tone for the future of high-level nuclear waste in Idaho and begin to examine the environmental outcomes of such activity. Although the document is far too long to analyze completely, we wish to bring to light some specifics about waste storage facilities, treatment, shipments, and cleanup.
First, much of the existing fuel at INEEL is currently being stored in ‘Wet Storage’ below ground.[49] Many hazards are associated with these pools, including the potential loss of coolant that could result in spontaneous combustion of the pools and in certain rare circumstances, meltdown of the plant.[50] Accordingly, the DOE and INEEL have begun negotiating a schedule to transfer all spent fuel out of wet storage facilities as a result of the Settlement Agreement; if fuel exists that poses an environmental threat to transfer, the DOE and state of Idaho will remedy the situation accordingly.[51] In addition, the agreement outlined the transfer of all TMI spent nuclear fuel to dry storage by June 1, 2001.[52] The remaining treatment of non-INEEL wastes fell under a different heading, instead requiring that “any and all Treatable Waste … shall be treated within six months of receipt at the facility.”[53]
Concerning the shipments of spent nuclear fuel to and from the INEEL, many provisions exist within the agreement concerning other types of waste and timetables. However we will disclose only some of vital concern for this research.[54] First, all remaining TMI shipments must be removed from the state of Idaho by the DOE by January 1, 2035. In addition, it is the responsibility of the DOE to treat all TMI high-level waste currently at INEEL so that it is ready for shipment by said date.[55] In total, the shipments scheduled to leave INEEL within the next 50 years are those that were only stored in Idaho temporarily as a result of the TMI disaster in 1979.
Whereas these shipments concerning waste leaving Idaho fall under Section C of the Settlement Agreement, those that will be permitted to enter Idaho are much more extensive and are outlined under Section D. This section is divided into two parts: those shipments containing naval spent fuel that are “necessary to meet national security requirements to defuel or refuel nuclear powered submarines, surface warships, or naval prototype or training reactors.”[56] The agreement goes on to set a limit of 575 shipments of spent fuel that can be shipped into Idaho by 2035, differing in amounts yearly, but not exceeding 36 individual shipments.[57]
The second division of Section D shapes the limits of spent fuel the DOE can move into Idaho and the INEEL. This section is divided into both waste types and origin, even considering that the U.S. Department of State may decide to accept spent fuel from foreign research reactors in the future.[58] Although there are far too many numbers and provisions to follow here, one area of concern for this specific research is the continuing interaction between INEEL and Fort St. Vrain. In Section D, Part 2, Letter (d) of the Settlement Agreement, the text reads, “No shipments of spent fuel shall be made to INEEL from Fort St. Vrain, unless a permanent repository or interim storage facility for spent fuel located outside of Idaho has opened and is accepting spent fuel from INEEL, in which case such shipments may be make for the purpose of treating spent fuel to make it suitable for disposal or storage in such a repository or facility.”[59] True to the hard fought cause of Governors Andrus and Batt, no waste will ever enter Idaho from Fort. St. Vrain to be stored permanently at INEEL. Instead, as a compromise, the waste can be treated and temporarily stored on its way to a final storage facility somewhere outside of Idaho.
Finally, the last area that we wish to touch on concerns Section G of the Settlement Agreement, stating that the DOE shall continue to implement the current environmental and waste restoration programs that have been previously outlined for the INEEL.[60] These programs have seen great success in restoring and protecting the surrounding environment of the Snake River Plain and have met every guideline to date under the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order.[61]
The history of waste cleanup and management began in 1989 when the EPA officially placed the INEEL on CERCLA’s National Priorities List (NPL) as a site requiring environmental action.[62] Under CERCLA, the DOE, EPA, and the state of Idaho reached the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFA/CO) agreement in 1991 that divided INEEL into 26 separate areas containing an additional 10 Waste Area Groups (WAG)[63] that potentially needed cleanup. All of these 36 sites were then given schedules for investigation and evaluation.
At the INEEL, each investigation ends with a proposed plan for action that presents the results of the investigation and an assessment of the risks and alternatives to the cleanup actions themselves.[64] After having reviewed the proposed plan, the DOE, EPA, and state reached a final decision at which point the cleanup activities could be designed, implemented, and completed.[65] By the end of 2000, 12 of the 26 areas had completed cleanup investigations with legally binding Records of Decision, while cleanup actions were in progress at another nine sites. [66] Further, according to the FFA/CO, of the ten total WAG that are to be cleaned up, three are expected to have cleanup actions completed by 2006.[67] In addition to the individual cleanup of these sites and WAG, environmental cleanup at INEEL also includes “deactivation, decontamination, and dismantlement of inactive and surplus facilities and structures. In the past 22 years, more than 215 surplus buildings and structures have been removed as part of cleanup activities.”[68] The DOE and INEEL have been very involved in the cleanup process of the Snake River Plain, ensuring all efforts run on schedule and cleanup is conducted as efficiently as possible.
According to a recent INEEL press release, the DOE is on schedule for all of its investigation and cleanup activities, and has complied with all guidelines set under the Settlement Agreement. Each milestone has been met and as a result, the DOE is dedicated to meeting its commitments to treat and dispose of on-site radioactive waste, and to completely store and eventually remove all spent nuclear fuel from INEEL.[69] In addition, the DOE has recently completed the transfer of all TMI spent nuclear fuel from storage pools to dry storage per the 1995 Settlement Agreement, solidifying both parties’ willingness to compromise for the better of the surrounding environment.[70]
Through all of the legislation and disputes between the state of Idaho, the DOE, the EPA, and the INEEL itself, the environment of the Snake River Plain has consistently been a top priority to be cleaned and maintained. Through the Settlement Agreement reached in 1995, both Idaho and the DOE will gain favorable outcomes, with much of the current spent nuclear fuel being removed from the state completely. The DOE must comply and in an expedient manner, make the surrounding area at INEEL nuclear waste free.[71]
Recently, construction of a CERCLA Disposal Facility began for the disposal of contaminated soil and debris from the grounds of INEEL, signaling the changing ways of the DOE and Idaho Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.[72] Due in part to visionary governors like Cecil D. Andrus, environmental management is now a top priority at nuclear facilities in Idaho and nationwide. In the end, the DOE and state government did what was necessary and proper to rid the Snake River Plain of hazardous nuclear waste, satisfying all parties involved and setting precedent for efficient cleanup action where waste presents a hazard. Overall, the INEEL situation should be looked upon as an outstanding example of government effectiveness in dealing with environmental management and restoration, from the courts’ decisions to the actions of the Department of Energy and the state of Idaho.
This
exemplary interaction between government, political, and environmental
interests has significantly impacted the global community. The environmental concerns voiced by
governor Andrus that led to the dry spent nuclear fuel storage to become the
standard for environmentally safe storage have already realized ripple effects
in France, where COEGMA runs its La Hague nuclear facility. The
COGEMA-La Hague site, located on the western tip of the Cotentin Peninsula in
Normandy, reprocesses spent power reactor fuel to recycle reusable energy
materials-uranium and plutonium-and to condition the waste into suitable final
form. The French accreditation council
for biomedical laboratories (Cofrac) certified the site's environmental lab in
1999 under the International Standards Organization's requirements for
calibration and testing laboratories (ISO Guide 25 & EN45001). It was also
certified in 1998, under a ministerial order, for radioactivity measurements of
the environment and of foods for human consumption. In
May 2001, consistent with the COGEMA's environmental programs, the La Hague
site received ISO 14001 certification for nuclear fuel storage and
reprocessing and for the conditioning of recyclable materials and waste. In
2000, a total of 26,000 samples were taken at 820 locations and 83,000 analyses
were performed as part of the site environmental monitoring program. The
effective dose from plant releases was less than 0.03 mSv (millisieverts), a
level considered to be negligible by recognized radiation protection experts.[73]
For the last 10 years, COGEMA-La Hague production has been split between the requirements of the French nuclear program (France's 58 nuclear power plants generate 76% of the country's electricity) and those of the 29 European and Japanese power companies that have reprocessing agreements with COGEMA. Power companies from six countries send spent fuel to COGEMA-La Hague: France, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. From 1990 to 2000, close to 12,000 metric tons of fuel have been reprocessed at the La Hague site. In 1981, La Hague had abandoned the more costly dry storage process, but after an increasing amount of environmental concerns were voiced by people like governor Andrus, La Hague has been forced to re-launch its research and development programs for dry storage and reprocessing citing that the dry process “presents certain advantages, such as a smaller volume of waste and the absence of liquid wastes”[74].
Conclusion
The ongoing interaction between government policy and environmental interest continues to advance the environmental standards for nuclear facilities. These standards evolve with technological progression, and continue to improve upon themselves. Current nuclear projects in the process of being built include the Yucca mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada, and the Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, a major plant in Japan. The Yucca mountain project will store most of the spent nuclear fuel waste for the United States, and is currently in the process of implementation The Japanese plant is designed to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and to extract plutonium in a prior stage to the pluthermal project, and is set to begin operations in July 2005. Future nuclear projects, both at home, and abroad, adhere to improving environmental standards set in place by governmental interaction exemplified by the interaction regarding INEEL, ensuring an increasingly environmentally safe future for nuclear energy and storage.
Chancellor, Will. Meanwhile Waste Accumulates: A Critique of Status Quo Policy of
High Level Waste Disposal and a Call for a Sub- Seabed Alternative. Human
Biology 125. May 25, 1998.
Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho
Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Draft Environmental Impact Statement, June 1994
O’Toole,
Thomas and Omang, Joanne. Nuclear
Plant Mishap Initially Confused NRC. The Washington Post. April 13, 1979.
Cases:
Hall v. Hawaii, 791 F.2d. December 13, 1989.
Illinois v. General Electric Co., 683 F. 2d. October, 1988.
Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus.
Civil No. 91-0035-S-HLR consolidated with Civil NO. 91-0054-S-HLR. May 7, 1991.
Public Service Company of Colorado and United States v.Phillip E. Batt.
No. 95-35608. September 28th, 1995.
United States v. Allen, 578 F.2d 237.
Websites:
http://www.cogemalahague.com/
http://www.francenuc.org/en_chn/irr_fuel1_e.htm
DOE Meets Another Commitment Under Idaho Settlement Agreement. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/DOECommitment.html
Waste Area Groups (WAG) Defined. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/environment.wag.shtml
Nuclear Information Resource Service. High Level Fact Sheet. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfest.html
[1] Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Draft Environmental Impact Statement, June 1994, p.55-56.
[2] The INEEL originally began as a testing ground for naval guns during and after World War II. These guns, destined for the decks of battleships during WWII were fired to the north up to 35 miles. In addition, this vast expanse of land was used for testing guns and practice bombing during the Viet Nam war. Many of the craters left from these explosions can still be seen today.
History: INEEL. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/about/history/08.html
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. Transuranic waste is defined by the INEEL as any element with an atomic number greater than 92, with radioactivity greater than 100 nanocuries per gram, and a half-life of more than 20 years.
http://www.inel.gov/environment/waste-types.shtml Accessed 5/01.
[6] Environmental Impact Statement. supra. 1 Accessed 5/01.
[7] O’Toole, Thomas and Omang, Joanne. Nuclear Plant Mishap Initially Confused NRC. The Washington Post. April 13, 1979.
[8] Id.
[9] O’Toole, Thomas and Omang, Joanne. supra. 7
[10] The International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEA) defines HLW in the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1979, p. 828 as any waste or other matter with an activity per unit gross mass (in tonnes) exceeding:
(a) 10 Ci/t for Alpha-emitters but limited to 10 Ci/t for Ra and Po
(b) 10 Ci/t for Beta-emitter with half lives of at least .5 years (excluding Tritium) and Beta-emitters of unknown half-lives; and
(c) 10 Ci/t for Tirtium and Beta –emitters with half lives of less that .5 years
Chancellor, Will. Meanwhile Waste Accumulates: A Critique of Status Quo Policy of High Level Waste Disposal and a Call for a Sub- Seabed Alternative. Human Biology 125. May 25, 1998, p. 2.
[11] Nuclear Information Resource Service. High Level Fact Sheet. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfest.html
[12] Id. Storing this waste in water pools versus dry-storage is the subject of great debate and environmental policy which we will discuss later.
[13] Waste Types at the INEEL. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/environment/waste-types.shtml
[14] Nuclear Information Resource Service website, supra. 11
[15] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus.
Civil No. 91-0035-S-HLR consolidated with Civil NO. 91-0054-S-HLR. May 7, 1991.
[16] Id. – Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 11, 1991, Exhibit B.
[17] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 7th, 1991. supra. 15 Andrus does not dispute that the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility (IFSF) at INEEL is the only storage facility currently available to accept Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear waste fuel. Nor does Andrus dispute that 121 shipments of Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel were previously shipped into the state of Idaho without incident.
[18] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus.
Civil No. 91-0035-S-HLR consolidated with Civil NO. 91-0054-S-HLR. March 29, 1991.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Hall v. Hawaii, 791 F.2d. December 13, 1989.
[22] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 29th, 1991. supra. 18
[23] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 7th, 1991. supra. 15
[24] Idaho’s response to DOE Motion for Summary Judgment and PSC Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed April 12, 1991. In this response, Andrus attempts to defeat both motions by two claims: first, calling attention to his counterclaim which asserts violations of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and second, to his petition for review pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA).
[25]Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 29th, 1991. supra. 18
[26] Illinois v. General Electric Co., 683 F. 2d. October, 1988.
[27] United States v. Allen, 578 F.2d 237. In this case, the court examined rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which state that “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations of denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits, or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts shoeing there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.”
[28] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 7th, 1991. supra. 15
[29] Id.
[30] Id. The court found that PSC is losing $2.5 million per month not storing their spent fuel at INEEL.
[31] Id.
[32] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Cecil D. Andrus. May 7th, 1991. supra. 15
[33]Public
Service Company of Colorado and United States v.Phillip E. Batt.
No. 95-35608. September 28th, 1995.
[34] Id. As a side note, Phillip E. Batt succeeded Cecil D. Andrus as governor of the state of Idaho.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] These scheduled activities include decontamination and decommissioning of the Auxiliary Reactor Area – II and the Boiling Water Reactor Experiment – V.
[40] Environmental Impact Statement. supra. 1 at p.50
[41] Id. p. 51.
[42] Id. This includes waste such as spent Naval waste and additional Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel.
[43] Environmental Impact Statement. supra.1 p. 51-52. These WAG are the subject to a large portion of the ongoing environmental cleanup around the Snake River Plain and INEEL. There are ten of these WAG sites that I will discuss in the next few sections that have been undergoing cleanup.
[44] Id. Other locations would include DOE facilities (the Centralization site), other Government sites, or private sector sites.
[45] Id. at p. 52.With the exception of the three-year Naval spent fuel transition period.
[46] Id. at p. 51.
[47] Id. at p. 53 Maximum Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Plan.
[48] Id. at p. 53.
[49] Nuclear Information Resource Service website. supra. 11 Wet Storage is the storing of nuclear spent fuel underground in pools of water. Immediately after the TMI incident, the core waste and debris was received and stored ‘temporarily’ in these pools. These ponds were not originally constructed for more that temporary storage and thus, the spent fuel needs to be moved to dry storage above ground. Many of the national reactors have reached pool capacity and have since consolidated the storage racks in order to store waste more densely.
[50] Id.
[51] Settlement Agreement between the State of Idaho and the Department of Energy October 16, 1995. at p. 5.
[52] Id. at p. 5.
[53] Id. at p. 5. The issue of waste treatment is an even larger reaching issue that I do not have time to discuss. For a complete list of rules and applications concerning waste treatment, see the Settlement Agreement, Section E.
[54] For a complete list and timetable, see the Settlement Agreement, Sections C and D.
[55] Nuclear Information Resource Service website. supra 11. p. 3.
[56] Id. p. 3.
[57] Id. p. 3. These shipments cannot exceed 55 metric tons in total.
[58] Id. p. 3. The Secretary of Energy must certify that these proposed shipments are necessary to meet national security and nonproliferation requirements.
[59] Nuclear Information Resource Service website. supra. 11 at p. 4.
[60] Id. at p. 7.
[61] The FFA/CO was initiated in 1991 and established a plan for cleanup at the INEEL and set legally enforceable milestones. Resulting form this agreement were 10 sites (called Waste Area Groups or WAG) that required special attention and cleanup. This agreement provides the rules and framework for response actions taken for toxic releases or threatened releases.
[62] Waste Area Groups (WAG) Defined. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/environment.wag.shtml
[63] These 10 sites are: 1) Test Area North, 2) Test Reactor Area, 3) Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, 4) Central Facilities Area, 5) Power Burst Facility, 6) Site Monitoring Area, 7) Radioactive Waste Management Complex, 8) Naval Reactors Facility, 9) Argonne National Laboratory – West, and 10) Miscellaneous sites within the INEEL and Snake River Aquifer.
[65] Id. at p .2
[66] Environmental Restoration. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/environment/restoration.shtml
[67] FFA/CO supra. 61 at p. 2.
[68] Id. at p. 2.
[69] DOE Meets Another Commitment Under Idaho Settlement Agreement. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/DOECommitment.html
[70] FFA/CO supra. 61 p. 1.
[71] Settlement Agreement between the State of Idaho and the Department of Energy October 16, 1995.
[72] Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center – Current Status. Accessed 5/01.
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/intec-status.shtml
[73]http://www.cogemalahague.com/
[74] http://www.francenuc.org/en_chn/irr_fuel1_e.htm