NWPA Is Still a Viable Option for Solving the Nuclear Waste Dilemma

• Date: 01 August 2010

40 ELR 10800 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 8-2010

R E S P O N S E

NWPA Is Still a Viable Option for

Solving the Nuclear Waste Dilemma

by Daniel T. Swanson

Daniel T. Swanson is the Senior Counsel for Environmental and Nuclear Regulatory Law for the Idaho National Laboratory. He

was an attorney for the U.S. NRC, representing it in multiple licensing and enforcement proceedings for reactors, including the

TMI accident hearings. He also served as the lead environmental and nuclear regulatory attorney for Battelle Memorial Inst. in

the DOE SNF and HLW repository siting program, and in that capacity was invited by DOE numerous times to lecture to other

U.S. agencies and repository siting contractors on NRC licensing. He is a 1974 graduate of Vanderbilt University Law School.

In his a rticle, Solving the U.S . Nuclear Waste Dilemma,1

Richard B. Stewart analyzes the history of the failure of

the U.S. to manage the rec ycling a nd disposal of spent

nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW)

from t he nuclear fuel c ycle a ssociated with the production

of electricity. He then develops some insightful sug gestions

to rectify the problem, recognizing that our current govern-

ment policy is not moving the country toward a viable solu-

tion for disposal of SNF and HLW.

Stewart is correct in concluding that the current arra nge-

ment of onsite storage of civilian nuclear waste provides a

relatively safe near-term option. However, there are very

real security considerations attendant to indenite storage

of wa ste at locations never selected or constructed to store

waste, with the potential for terrorists to target well-known

quantities of low-level radioactive waste (L LRW) and HLW

at reactor sites. As politicians become complacent with the

lack of serious security incidents resulting from their failure

to take decisive action to nd disposal solutions, it becomes

easier for them to ignore this volatile issue.

One consequence of the failure to take responsibility for

the disposal of SNF and HLW is its negative impact on the

development of nuclear power. A certain portion of the popu-

lation opposes any growth in nuclear power as long as there is

no demonstrated disposal option for SNF and HLW. Taking

responsibility for the waste with a permanent repository will

advance our energy security by helping us to maintain diverse

sources of energy supply with t he elimination of one serious

impediment—the absence of safe disposal of SNF—while

increased nuclear power will reduce emissions of greenhouse

gases. A repository will also advance our national security by

helping to provide operational certainty to our nuclear Navy

1. Richard B. Stewart, Solving the U.S. Nuclear Waste Dilemma, 40 ELR (E’

L.  P’ A. R.) 10783 (Aug. 2010) (derived from Richard B. Stew-

art, U.S. Nuclear Waste Law and Policy: Fixing a Bankrupt System, 17 N.Y.U.

E’ L.J. 783 (2008)).

and by facilitating the decommissioning of nuclear weapons

and the secure disposition of nuclear materials.2

Based on experience obtained in the search for viable sites

for a SNF and HLW repository, I have a dierent perspective

than Stewart as to whether the law that directed the process,

the NWPA, was to blame for the failure to select a viable

repository site. Rather t han being a failure, the NWPA was

very successful in creating a process that identied poten-

tially acceptable sites. Considerable resources were devoted to

screening and exploration using a variety of media across the

country, with a number of sites being identied as very prom-

ising from a geological and political perspective. e U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) initially identied nine sites

as being potentially acceptable. Nine Draft Environmental

Assessments (EAs) supported that decision.3 Several of the

communities in proximity with the target sites welcomed

the prospect of being host communities with the attendant

benets of jobs a nd government payments.4 In accordance

with the NW PA,5 the list of nine was narrowed down to

ve locations representing three dierent rock media, for

which DOE developed nal environmental assessments.6 Yet

the technical process was thwarted by Congress in selecting

the Nevada site and eliminating the four other sites without

2. S S A, R   S 

E R  S   Y M S  

R U  N W P A  1982 2, 31 (Feb.

2002).

3. Draft Environmental Assessments for Lavender and Davis Canyon Sites, Utah,

Cypress Creek and Richton Dome sites, Miss., Deaf Smith and Swisher Coun-

ties, Texas, Vacherie Dome, La., and Yucca Mtn., Nev., and Hanford, United

States Department of Energy, Oce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manage-

ment 10-17 (1984).

4. See, e.g., Environmental Assessme nt, Davis Canyon Site, United States De-

partment of Energy Oce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

(1986); Environmental Assessment, Deaf Smith County Site, Tex as, United

States Department of Energy Oce of Civilian Radi oactive Waste Manage-

ment (1984) (discussing a unifor m lack of reluctance among communities to

serve as host communities for such site in light of th e possibility o f federal

funds and federal jobs).

5. 42 U.S.C. §10132(b).

6. Final Environmental Assessments for Davis Canyon, Deaf Smith County,

Hanford, Richton Dome, and Yucca Mountain, United States Department of

Energy Oce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (1986).

Copyright © 2010 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.