The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to build facilities to begin recycling the nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel. GNEP's objectives include reducing radioactive waste disposed of in a geologic repository and mitigating the nuclear proliferation risks of existing recycling technologies. DOE originally planned a small engineering-scale demonstration of advanced recycling technologies being developed by DOE national laboratories. While DOE has not ruled out this approach, the current GNEP strategic plan favors working with industry to demonstrate the latest commercially available technology in full-scale facilities and to do so in a way that will attract industry investment.

    DOE has funded four industry groups to prepare proposals for full-scale facilities. DOE officials expect the Secretary of Energy to decide on an approach to GNEP by the end of 2008. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOE would address GNEP's objectives under (1) its original engineering-scale approach and (2) the accelerated approach to building full-scale facilities. GAO analyzed DOE plans and industry proposals and interviewed DOE and industry officials concerning the pros and cons of both approaches.

    DOE's original approach of building engineering-scale facilities would meet GNEP's objectives if the advanced technologies on which it focused can be successfully developed and commercialized. The advanced technologies would reduce waste to a greater degree than existing technologies by recycling radioactive material that a geologic repository has limited capacity to accommodate. The advanced technologies would also mitigate proliferation risks relative to existing technologies by increasing the difficulty of theft or diversion of weapons-usable nuclear material from recycling facilities.

    Nonetheless, DOE's engineering-scale approach had two shortcomings. First, it lacked industry participation, potentially reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of the technologies. In particular, the approach included some technologies that may introduce unnecessary costs and technical challenges while creating waste management challenges; industry representatives have questioned whether such technologies could be commercialized. Second, DOE's schedule called for building one of the recycling facilities (a reprocessing plant for separating reusable materials from spent nuclear fuel and fabricating recycled fuel) before conducting R&D on recycled fuel that would help determine the plant's design requirements. This schedule unnecessarily increased the risk that the spent fuel would be separated in a form that cannot be recycled.

    The other two facilities DOE had planned to build (an advanced reactor for using recycled fuel and an R&D facility) would allow DOE to conduct R&D that existing DOE facilities have limited capability to support. DOE's accelerated approach of building full-scale facilities would likely require using unproven evolutions of existing technologies that would reduce radioactive waste and mitigate proliferation risks to a much lesser degree than anticipated from more advanced technologies. Two of the four industry groups that have received funding under GNEP proposed evolutionary technologies for recycling spent fuel in existing reactors even though the GNEP strategic plan ruled out such technologies. While the evolutionary technologies could allow DOE to begin recycling a large amount of spent fuel sooner than under its original approach, fully meeting GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives would require a later transition to more advanced technologies.

    Two other industry groups proposed technologies that would address GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives by using technologies that are not mature enough to allow DOE to accelerate construction of full-scale recycling facilities. Under any of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to attract enough industry investment to avoid the need for a large amount of government funding for full-scale facilities. For example, the industry groups have proposed that DOE fund an advanced reactor, which DOE and industry officials expect would at least initially be more expensive than existing reactors to build and operate and thus not be commercially competitive. DOE acknowledges the limitations of its accelerated approach but cites other benefits, such as the potential to exert more immediate international influence on nonproliferation issues.

    As WIMS has reported previously [See WIMS 5/16/08], despite many critics and recommendations to alter the GNEP, DOE continues to push forward with the program. On March 31, 2008, a coalition of public interest, environmental and policy groups released a report detailing what they say are, "the severe shortcomings and false assertions" posed in the Administration's GNEP [See WIMS 4/2/08]. The GNEP has been criticized by others as well. The program recently came under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders that concluded, "that critical elements of the program [GNEP] are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."

    Access the complete GAO report (click here). Access a release on the Risky Appropriations report with links to the complete 64-page report and fact sheet (click here). Access the GNEP website (click here). Access the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (click here). Access further information on DOE’s nuclear energy program website (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

Congress Overrides President's Farm Bill Veto - May 21: As expected, the House and Senate have voted to override President Bush's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill)) which passed the House on May 14, by a vote of 318-106, and passed the Senate on May 15, by a vote of 81 to 15. House and Senate leaders have vowed to override any Presidential veto and have the votes, and are expected to do it soon. The override vote in the House was 316-108 (11 not voting) and in the Senate the vote was 82-13 (1 present, 4 not voting).

    There was an administrative error and only 14 of 15 titles to the bill were actually presented for the override votes. To correct the problem an alternative bill, H.R. 6124, containing all titles was introduced and presented for a vote. In the House the alternative bill passed 306-110 (19 not voting). The alternative bill is pending Senate action.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a brief statement saying, "With overwhelming bipartisan votes, the House and Senate have both overridden President Bush’s ill-advised veto of a Farm Bill that will reduce food costs, invest in energy independence to reduce gas prices, and reform our farm support system. This Farm Bill will ensure that future farm bills will never again look like those of the past. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson and many others, this bill makes an historic investment in energy independence and nutrition assistance, ensuring that its effects will also be felt far from farm country."

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a brief statement saying, "Rapidly rising food and fuel prices have put a strain on all Americans, but especially on low-income working Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. By overturning the President’s veto, we are making substantial investments in nutrition programs to help millions of families afford healthy food; in help for farmers hit by disaster and to protect our nation’s natural resources; and in renewable energy sources like cellulosic biofuels to help reduce our dependence on oil.  Improving our food and nutrition programs is an important step toward helping rural communities in Nevada and across the country cope with the casualties of a rising cost of living.”

    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) an active participant in the Farm Bill debate said the final bill provides some badly needed new funding for conservation programs over the next five years, and makes improvements to some of these programs. However, they said, "these benefits are overshadowed by the lack of meaningful subsidy reform, the addition of an environmentally damaging new subsidy program and last-minute changes made to the bill by the conference committee that undermine the effectiveness of the bill’s conservation provisions."
    Sara Hopper, an attorney with EDF who was a staff member of the Senate Agriculture Committee during the 2002 farm bill said, “The good news is that the 2008 farm bill includes $4 billion in new money for conservation, and makes changes to some conservation programs that will make them more effective in helping farmers deliver environmental benefits like cleaner water to the public. The bad news is that the bills that both the House and Senate passed last year provided more money and included stronger conservation policies.  Unfortunately, the conferees worked behind closed doors to make this a weaker bill for the environment.” 

    Access a release from Speaker Pelosi (click here). Access a release and brief summary from Majority Leader Reid (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). Access the House override roll call vote (click here). Access the Senate override roll call vote (click here). Access the Senate Farm Bill Conference website (click here). Access the House Farm Bill website (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 including links to roll call votes (click here). Access legislative details for alternative bill H.R. 6124 including links to roll call votes (click here). Access the USDA Farm Bill website (click here). Access comments from farm groups on the passage (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]

Senate EPW Committee Passes California Waiver Bill - May 21: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), announced that her Committee approved S. 2555, The Reducing Global Warming Pollution from Vehicles Act of 2008, a bill that instructs the President to sign the California waiver so that California and other states can proceed with laws to improve air quality problems from cars.

    According to a release from Senator Boxer, on December 19, 2007, U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request for the waiver -- "the first time in history that EPA had ever denied outright a request from California for a waiver to do more to cut air pollution." The Senator said, "Administrator Johnson's decision to deny the waiver was not supported by the facts, by the law, by the science, or by precedent. Just this week we learned of more evidence that the Bush White House intervened to kill the waiver for California [See WIMS 5/21/08]. Today's action in the Environment Committee brings us one step closer to giving a green light to California and the other states so they can begin tackling global warming pollution from vehicles."

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), an original cosponsor of the bill, said, "The time has come to take the decision on California's waiver out of the hands of the EPA. The senior leadership of the EPA has failed to demonstrate that it has the integrity or independence to make decisions based on sound science. So this legislation would help right the wrong that blocked California from implement[ing] its groundbreaking law to reduce tailpipe emissions. Let me thank Senator Boxer for her leadership as Chairman in getting this legislation approved by the Committee."

    Fourteen other states -- Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- have adopted California's standards, or are in the process of adopting them. Another four - Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Utah -- are moving toward adopting the California standards. Boxer said, "All together, those 19 states represent more than 152 million Americans - a majority of the U.S. population."

    Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access legislative details on S. 2555 (click here). Access numerous posts on the eNewsUSA Blog regarding the "California Waiver" (click here). [*Energy, *Climate]

UCS Praises NRC Commissioner Call For Dry Casks Storage - May 21: According to a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the groups praises a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) member's recent call for the Agency to require nuclear power plants to better protect high-level radioactive waste on site. UCS said it has advocated this position for safer storage of spent nuclear fuel rods for years. UCS said that in a May 13 speech at a nuclear industry trade group forum, NRC Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko said it is much safer to store spent nuclear fuel rods in steel and concrete containers, called dry casks, than in large water-filled concrete pits, known as wet pools. He recommended that his Agency require plants to expeditiously transfer spent fuel from wet pools to dry casks rather than allow it to accumulate in the pools.
    UCS said, if the NRC required nuclear plant owners to move spent fuel to dry casks, plant owners would reduce the likelihood of a spent fuel fire due to accident or terrorist attack and the amount of radioactive material that could be released by such a fire. Dave Lochbaum, director of UCS's Nuclear Power Safety Project said, "This is exactly what the NRC needs to do. It's an easy way to make plants less vulnerable to attack. If the NRC does what Commissioner Jaczko suggests, the millions of Americans who live near nuclear power plants will be safer." 

    UCS indicates that a large radiation release resulting from a wet pool fire could result in thousands of cancer deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in decontamination costs and economic damage, according to a 2004 study by UCS Senior Scientist Edwin Lyman, Princeton University professor Frank Von Hippel and consultant Jan Beyea published in the journal Science and Global Security. An attack on a dry cask storage area would, in most circumstances, result in a much smaller release of radioactivity and much less severe damage.

    Access a release from UCS and link to Commissioner Jaczko's speech (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]

Coal Council Report: The Urgency of Sustainable Coal - May 22: The National Coal Council (NCC), a Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, presented the U.S. Department of Energy with recommendations for the technology and regulatory framework to increase America's use of clean coal for energy security, environmental improvement and economic prosperity at a time of unprecedented global energy needs. The study, "The Urgency of Sustainable Coal," was conducted at the request of U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and is the fourth major study presented by the NCC in five years.
    Georgia Nelson, President and CEO of PTI Resources, Inc., and NCC Chair said, "Coal is an essential part of the world's energy future. Recent energy events remind us that much of the world remains behind the energy eight-ball. The urgency is reflected in $4 per gallon gas, families doing without essentials to keep the lights on, and more than 2 billion people around the world that lack adequate access to electricity or have no electricity at all. The United States has a unique opportunity to advance clean energy solutions from coal that will alleviate energy poverty and address concerns about climate. Greater use of coal for electricity, gas and transportation fuels is the solution."
    According to the report: (1) Since the Council released its "Coal: America's Energy Future" study in 2006, oil prices have risen from $56 per barrel to over $85 in January of 2008, and now exceeds $130. This increase has significantly slowed economic growth. (2) Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is $12 to $18 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) in many parts of the world as rising demand from Asia and Europe has dramatically reduced U.S. import expectations. (3) Oil production has stagnated as even more of the world's top ten producers, including China, Mexico, Norway, Russia and the United States face depleting reserves. (4) Costs to produce energy have risen dramatically due to escalating prices for steel, materials, labor, equipment, transportation and energy itself.
    The study recommends an advanced portfolio of technology options for the electric power industry; greater R&D on coal-based electricity generation and carbon capture and storage technologies; incentives to deploy advanced coal-based electricity technologies coordinated with plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles; Congressional funding for large demonstration projects in multiple regions using multiple technologies, and transferring technology to emerging nations such as China and India. It calls on government funding and private-public partnerships to accelerate the commercialization of clean coal technologies.

    Speaking at the May 22 meeting, Secretary Bodman said, "As you well know, we very much rely on coal to meet our vast energy needs. Put another way, I don’t think anything our country uses 1.1 billion tons of in a given year is going to go away any time soon. Clearly, the better and frankly inescapable answer is to find ways to use this abundant resource more cleanly and efficiently. Of course, you all know this in fact, it is the topic of the study you have just completed, “The Urgency of Sustainable Coal.” 

    In his speech, Bodman discussed the issues of CO2 emissions, climate change and pending legislation. He said, "EIA looked at a number of scenarios, including a case that assumed the availability of advanced technology in 2030 including nuclear power and CCS, as well as a case that assumed limited availability of this technology. The analysis showed that, without an aggressive push forward on these technologies, this legislation could result in a cumulative negative impact on our economy of between $531 billion to $1.5 trillion in current year dollars, and a potential loss of up to 1 million jobs."

G8 Environment Ministers Meeting In Japan - May 23: U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson will lead the U.S. delegation to the G8 Environment Ministers Meeting in Kobe, Japan, May 24-26. The participants will discuss climate change, biodiversity, and the "3R Initiative" (reducing waste and reusing and recycling resources and products). The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States to discuss issues of common concern. Though the group's origins date back to the early 1970s, it did not become the Group of Eight until 1997 when Russia formally joined. Among other attendees at the Kobe meeting are representatives of the United Nations, European Commission, China, India, Brazil and South Africa and more.