« PrécédentContinuer »
The experience in siting the first repository suggests that site-specific screening leading to the identification of potentially acceptable sites should start about 25 years before the start of waste acceptance for disposal. Therefore, to have the second repository available by about 2025, site specific studies need not start until the middle to late 1990s.
For the second repository, DOE may consider sites identified as potentially acceptable but not nominated for the first repository, sites found potentially acceptable from rock formations not previously studied in the first repository selection process and sites characterized but not chosen for the first repository site.
A rock type not previously studied in the first repository selection process has been crystalline rock. Following national surveys, DOE identified 235 crystalline rockbodies in 17 States in three regions -- the North Central, the Northeast and the Southeast parts of the country.
In the "regional phase" of investigation, DOE collected and assessed publicly available geologic and environmental data, reviewed these data with the States and prepared Regional Environmental and Geologic Characterization Reports for each of the three Regions. In addition, through workshops and other interactions with the crystalline States, DOE prepared a Regionto-Area Screening Methodology to be used for narrowing down the 235 rockbodies to a small number of areas preferred for further study.
on January 16, 1986, following application of the screening Methodology to the data contained in the Regional Characteriza
tion Reports, we issued for public comment a Draft Area Recommendation Report (ARR).
Based on the Secretary's announcement in May 1986 to postpone indefinitely site-specific work for a second repository until the mid- to late-1990s, DoE is now cataloging the more than 60,000 comments received on the Draft ARR. Based on the schedule represented in the draft amendment to the Mission Plan and approval of DOE's plans presented therein, DOE plans to begin with national surveys when site-specific efforts are later considered.
· Monitored Retrievable Storage
The FY 1988 funding estimate assumes the Congress will allow DOE to proceed with activities that are critical to deployment of an MRS facility. With this in mind, the FY 1988 estimate for MRS activities is $58 million compared to the FY 1987 budget appropriation of $20 million. These funds would be used primarily for site data collection and analysis, final design of the facility itself, regulatory compliance studies and State liaison activities. The schedule for construction of the MRS allows about ten years from the time Congress approves our proceeding, to the start up of operations. The FY 1989 estimate is $66 million and the FY 1990 estimate is $68 million.
The NWPA (Section 141) directs DoE to complete a study of
the need for and feasibility of an MRS, and to submit to the
Congress a proposal for the construction of one or more MRS facililties. The NWPA specifies that the proposal include a program for siting, development, construction and operation of an
MRS facility; site specific designs and cost estimates for the construction of such a facility, should Congress approve its construction; a plan for funding the construction and operation of such a facility; and a plan for integrating such a facility into the overall Federal waste management system.
In spring of 1985, DOE completed a preliminary analysis of the need for and feasibility of an MRS facility and announced our conclusion that such a facility could serve as an integral and important part of the overall waste disposal system. With approval of Congress, we reprogrammed funds to allow us to prepare the full MRS proposal. We identified a preferred site and two alternative sites, as required by the NWPA. In addition, we completed the need and feasibility studies verifying our tentative conclusions. We paid special attention to evaluating the no-MRS case.
We worked closely with the State in our development of the proposal to Congress. This interaction has principally been through the Governor's Safe Growth Council. To support their review of the proposal, we provided a grant of $1.4 million. The State in turn provided $100,000 each to two local community groups to study the MRS proposal.
The clinch River MRS Task Force completed their review in October 1985 and issued a report entitled "Recommendations on the Proposed Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility." In their report, the Task Force concluded that an MRS could be safely constructed and operated. In addition, Task Force members from the city of Oak Ridge and from Roane County passed resolutions stating that an MRS facility would be acceptable if certain
conditions were met, In our proposal to Congress, which we hope to be permitted by the courts to submit soon, we have attempted to meet those conditions.
In mid-December 1985, and as required by the NWPA, we submitted to the NRC and to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review copies of the Proposal to Congress, the Environmental Assessment on the MRS and an MRS Program Plan. At the same time, we provided copies to the State.
In January, 1986, the Governor met with the Secretary of Energy and me to present the state's position on our proposal to construct an MRS at the clinch River site. We were disappointed that the then Governor did not share our view of the need for and value of an MRS. We are pleased that he, like the clinch River MRS Task Force, shared our view that such a facility could be constructed and operated safely and is not a substitute for a
When we are permitted to submit the proposal to Congress, it will be accompanied by NRC comments and EPA comments as well as the state and local community group comments.
In our proposal, we will recommend that congress:
Direct Doé to implement measures responsive to the
the proposal. Our intent regarding MRS 18 to fulfill our statutory obligations under the Act and submit the proposal on MRS to the Congress at the earliest date practicable.
In accordance with other provisions of the NWPA, should Congress approve proceeding with an MRS facility, we are committed to seeking immediately to enter into a formal Consultation and Cooperation Agreement with the host State.
Nuclear Waste Fund
In April 1983, DOE adopted a fee of one mill (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt hour charged to utilities for all nucleargenerated electricity beginning April 7, 1983, as specified in the NWPA. Revenues collected from the on-going fee by DOE through December 31, 1986, total approximately $1.3 billion.
In addition to spent fuel generated since April 7, 1983, spent fuel or high-level waste generated prior to that date is subject to a fee equivalent to an average charge of one mill per kilowatt hour. Utilities had until June 1985 to decide on one of three payment options. Those who chose to pay in one lump sum by June 1985, to save interest charges, made payments totalling more than $1.4 billion. This represents more than half of the onetine tee liability of $2.3 billion for civilian nuclear waste in existence prior to April 1, 1983. Following receipt of these