Search This Blog

Saturday, August 7, 2021

United States Department of Energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Department of Energy
Seal of the United States Department of Energy.svg
 
Seal of the U.S. Department of Energy
Flag of the United States Department of Energy.svg
Flag of the U.S. Department of Energy
US Dept of Energy Forrestal Building.jpg
James V. Forrestal Building, Department Headquarters

Agency overview
FormedAugust 4, 1977
Preceding agencies
HeadquartersJames V. Forrestal Building
1000 Independence Avenue
Southwest, Washington, D.C., U.S.
38°53′13″N 77°1′34″WCoordinates: 38°53′13″N 77°1′34″W
Employees14,382 federal civilian (2018)
93,094 contract (2008)
Annual budget$31.7 billion (2020)
Agency executives
Websiteenergy.gov
Footnotes

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is a cabinet-level department of the United States Government concerned with the United States' policies regarding energy and safety in handling nuclear material. Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production. It also directs research in genomics; the Human Genome Project originated in a DOE initiative. DOE sponsors more research in the physical sciences than any other U.S. federal agency, the majority of which is conducted through its system of National Laboratories. The agency is led by the United States Secretary of Energy, and its headquarters are located in Southwest Washington, D.C., on Independence Avenue in the James V. Forrestal Building, named for James Forrestal, as well as in Germantown, Maryland.

Jennifer Granholm is the Secretary of Energy as of February 25, 2021.

History

Formation and consolidation

In 1942, during World War II, the United States started the Manhattan Project, a project to develop the atomic bomb, under the eye of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. After the war in 1946, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was created to control the future of the project. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 also created the framework for the first National Laboratories. Among other nuclear projects, the AEC produced fabricated uranium fuel cores at locations such as Fernald Feed Materials Production Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1974, the AEC gave way to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was tasked with regulating the nuclear power industry, and the Energy Research and Development Administration, which was tasked to manage the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs.

The 1973 oil crisis called attention to the need to consolidate energy policy. On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95–91, 91 Stat. 565, enacted August 4, 1977), which created the Department of Energy. The new agency, which began operations on October 1, 1977, consolidated the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and programs of various other agencies. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who served under Presidents Nixon and Ford during the Vietnam War, was appointed as the first secretary.

President Carter created the Department of Energy with the goal of promoting energy conservation and developing alternative sources of energy. He wanted to not be dependent on foreign oil and reduce the use of fossil fuels. With international energy's future uncertain for America, Carter acted quickly to have the department come into action the first year of his presidency. This was an extremely important issue of the time as the oil crisis was causing shortages and inflation.  With the Three-Mile Island disaster, Carter was able to intervene with the help of the department. Carter made switches within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this case to fix the management and procedures. This was possible as nuclear energy and weapons are responsibility of the Department of Energy.

Weapon plans stolen

In December 1999, the FBI was investigating how China obtained plans for a specific nuclear device. Wen Ho Lee was accused of stealing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory for the People's Republic of China. Federal officials, including then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, publicly named Lee as a suspect before he was charged with a crime. The U.S. Congress held hearings to investigate the Department of Energy's mishandling of his case. Republican senators thought that an independent agency should be in charge of nuclear weapons and security issues, not the Department of Energy. All but one of the 59 charges against Lee were eventually dropped because the investigation finally proved that the plans the Chinese obtained could not have come from Lee. Lee filed suit and won a $1.6 million settlement against the federal government and news agencies. The episode eventually led to the creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the department.

Loan guarantee program of 2005

In 2001, American Solar Challenge was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. After the 2005 race, the U.S. Department of Energy discontinued its sponsorship.

Title XVII of Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the DOE to issue loan guarantees to eligible projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases" and "employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued". In loan guarantees, a conditional commitment requires to meet an equity commitment, as well as other conditions, before the loan guarantee is completed.

The United States Department of Energy, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) partnered to develop and launch the World Institute for Nuclear Security (WINS) in September 2008. WINS is an international non-governmental organization designed to provide a forum to share best practices in strengthening the security and safety of nuclear and radioactive materials and facilities.

Recent

On March 28, 2017, a supervisor in the Office of International Climate and Clean Energy asked staff to avoid the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication. A DOE spokesperson denied that phrases had been banned.

In a May 2019 press release concerning natural gas exports from a Texas facility, the DOE used the term 'freedom gas' to refer to natural gas. The phrase originated from a speech made by Secretary Rick Perry in Brussels earlier that month. Washington Governor Jay Inslee decried the term "a joke".

Organization

Program
Secretary of Energy Deputy Secretary of Energy
*Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy)
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability)
Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs)
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs)
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response)
Office of the General Counsel
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
Energy Information Administration
Bonneville Power Administration
Southeastern Power Administration
Southwestern Power Administration
Western Area Power Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Enterprise Assessments
Energy Policy and System Analysis
Intelligence and Counterintelligence
Loan Programs Office
Public Affairs
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Under Secretary of Energy for Science Office of Science
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy)
Indian Energy Policy and Programs
Technology Transitions
Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security National Nuclear Security Administration
Under Secretary of Energy National Laboratory Operations Board
Associate Under Secretary of Energy (Environment, Health, Safety and Security)
Office of Management
Chief Human Capital Officer
Chief Information Officer
Economic Impact and Diversity
Hearings and Appeals
Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environmental Management)
*Legacy Management

The department is under the control and supervision of a United States Secretary of Energy, a political appointee of the President of the United States. The Energy Secretary is assisted in managing the department by a United States Deputy Secretary of Energy, also appointed by the president, who assumes the duties of the secretary in his absence. The department also has three under secretaries, each appointed by the president, who oversee the major areas of the department's work. The president also appoints seven officials with the rank of Assistant Secretary of Energy who have line management responsibility for major organizational elements of the Department. The Energy Secretary assigns their functions and duties.

Symbolism in the seal

Excerpt from the Code of Federal Regulations, in Title 10: Energy:

The official seal of the Department of Energy "includes a green shield bisected by a gold-colored lightning bolt, on which is emblazoned a gold-colored symbolic sun, atom, oil derrick, windmill, and dynamo. It is crested by the white head of an eagle, atop a white rope. Both appear on a blue field surrounded by concentric circles in which the name of the agency, in gold, appears on a green background."

"The eagle represents the care in planning and the purposefulness of efforts required to respond to the Nation's increasing demands for energy. The sun, atom, oil derrick, windmill, and dynamo serve as representative technologies whose enhanced development can help meet these demands. The rope represents the cohesiveness in the development of the technologies and their link to our future capabilities. The lightning bolt represents the power of the natural forces from which energy is derived and the Nation's challenge in harnessing the forces."

"The color scheme is derived from nature, symbolizing both the source of energy and the support of man's existence. The blue field represents air and water, green represents mineral resources and the earth itself, and gold represents the creation of energy in the release of natural forces. By invoking this symbolism, the color scheme represents the Nation's commitment to meet its energy needs in a manner consistent with the preservation of the natural environment."

Facilities

The Department of Energy operates a system of national laboratories and technical facilities for research and development, as follows:

Other major DOE facilities include:

Other:

Nuclear weapons sites

A map that details the federal land in southern Nevada, showing Nevada Test Site

The DOE/NNSA has federal responsibility for the design, testing and production of all nuclear weapons. NNSA in turn uses contractors to carry out its responsibilities at the following government owned sites:

Related legislation

Sign in front of the United States Department of Energy Forrestal Building on 1000 Independence Avenue in Washington D.C.

Budget

On May 7, 2009 President Barack Obama unveiled a $26.4 billion budget request for DOE for fiscal year (FY) 2010, including $2.3 billion for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). That budget aimed to substantially expand the use of renewable energy sources while improving energy transmission infrastructure. It also proposed significant investments in hybrids and plug-in hybrids, smart grid technologies, and scientific research and innovation.

As part of the $789 billion economic stimulus package in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Congress provided Energy with an additional $38.3 billion for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, adding about 75 percent to Energy's annual budgets. Most of the stimulus spending was in the form of grants and contracts. For fiscal year 2013, each of the operating units of the Department of Energy operated with the following budgets:

Division Funding
Nuclear Security $11.5
Energy and Environment $9.5
Science $4.9
Management $0.25
Other $0.85
Total $28

In March 2018, Energy Secretary Rick Perry testified to a Senate panel about the Trump administration's DOE budget request for fiscal year 2019. The budget request prioritizes nuclear security while making large cuts to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The proposal is a $500 million increase in funds over fiscal year 2017. It "promotes innovations like a new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) and gains for the Office of Fossil Energy. Investments would be made to strengthen the National Nuclear Security Administration and modernize the nuclear force, as well as in weapons activities and advanced computing." However, the budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would be lowered to $696 million under the plan, down from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2017. Overall, the department's energy and related programs would be cut by $1.9 billion.

Programs and contracts

Energy Savings Performance Contract

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) are contracts under which a contractor designs, constructs, and obtains the necessary financing for an energy savings project, and the federal agency makes payments over time to the contractor from the savings in the agency's utility bills. The contractor guarantees the energy improvements will generate savings, and after the contract ends, all continuing cost savings accrue to the federal agency.

Energy Innovation Hubs

Energy Innovation Hubs are multi-disciplinary meant to advance highly promising areas of energy science and technology from their early stages of research to the point that the risk level will be low enough for industry to commercialize the technologies. The Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) was the first DOE Energy Innovation Hub established in July 2010, for the purpose of providing advanced modeling and simulation (M&S) solutions for commercial nuclear reactors.

The 2009 DOE budget includes $280 million to fund eight Energy Innovation Hubs, each of which is focused on a particular energy challenge. Two of the eight hubs are included in the EERE budget and will focus on integrating smart materials, designs, and systems into buildings to better conserve energy and on designing and discovering new concepts and materials needed to convert solar energy into electricity. Another two hubs, included in the DOE Office of Science budget, were created to tackle the challenges of devising advanced methods of energy storage and creating fuels directly from sunlight without the use of plants or microbes. Yet another hub was made to develop "smart" materials to allow the electrical grid to adapt and respond to changing conditions.

In 2012, the DOE awarded $120 million to the Ames Laboratory to start a new EIH, the Critical Materials Institute, which will focus on improving the supply of rare earth elements, which is controlled by China.

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy

ARPA-E was officially created by the America COMPETES Act , authored by Congressman Bart Gordon, within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 2007, though without a budget. The initial budget of about $400 million was a part of the economic stimulus bill of February 2009.

Other

 

Deep geological repository

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

A deep geological repository is a way of storing hazardous or radioactive waste within a stable geologic environment (typically 200–1000 m deep). It entails a combination of waste form, waste package, engineered seals and geology that is suited to provide a high level of long-term isolation and containment without future maintenance. This will prevent any radioactive dangers. A number of mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste repositories are operating worldwide including Canada (Giant Mine) and Germany (potash mines in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz) and a number of radioactive waste storages are under construction with the Onkalo in Finland being the most advanced.

Principles and background

Highly toxic waste that cannot be further recycled must be stored in isolation to avoid contamination of air, ground and underground water. Deep geological repository is a type of long-term storage that isolates waste in geological structures that are expected to be stable for millions of years, with a number of natural and engineered barriers. Natural barriers include a water-impermeable (e.g. clay) and gas-impermeable (e.g. salt) layers of rock above and surrounding the underground storage. Engineered barriers include bentonite clay and cement.

The International Panel on Fissile Materials has said:

It is widely accepted that spent nuclear fuel and high-level reprocessing and plutonium wastes require well-designed storage for periods ranging from tens of thousands to a million years, to minimize releases of the contained radioactivity into the environment. Safeguards are also required to ensure that neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium is diverted to weapon use. There is general agreement that placing spent nuclear fuel in repositories hundreds of meters below the surface would be safer than indefinite storage of spent fuel on the surface.

Common elements of repositories include the radioactive waste, the containers enclosing the waste, other engineered barriers or seals around the containers, the tunnels housing the containers, and the geologic makeup of the surrounding area.

A storage space hundreds of metres below the ground need to withstand the effects of one or more future glaciations with thick ice sheets resting on top of the rock. The presence of ice sheets affects the hydrostatic pressure at repository depth, groundwater flow and chemistry, and the potential for earthquakes. This is being taken into consideration by organizations preparing for long-term waste repositories in Sweden, Finland, Canada and some other countries that also have to assess the effects of future glaciations.

Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge. One of the challenges facing the supporters of these efforts is to demonstrate confidently that a repository will contain wastes for so long that any releases that might take place in the future will pose no significant health or environmental risk.

Nuclear reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository, but reduces the volume, the long-term radiation hazard, and long-term heat dissipation capacity needed. Reprocessing does not eliminate the political and community challenges to repository siting.

Natural radioactive repositories

Natural uranium ore deposits serve as proof of concept for stability of radioactive elements in geological formations — Cigar Lake Mine for example is a natural deposit of highly concentrated uranium ore located under sandstone and quartz layer at depth of 450 m that is 1 billion years old with no radioactive leaks to the surface.

Swedish KBS-3 capsule for nuclear waste.

The ability of natural geologic barriers to isolate radioactive waste is demonstrated by the natural nuclear fission reactors at Oklo, Gabon. During their long reaction period about 5.4 tonnes of fission products as well as 1.5 tonnes of plutonium together with other transuranic elements were generated in the uranium ore body. This plutonium and the other transuranics remained immobile until the present day, a span of almost 2 billion years. This is quite remarkable in view of the fact that ground water had ready access to the deposits and they were not in a chemically inert form, such as glass.

Research

Pilot cave of Onkalo at final depth.

Deep geologic disposal has been studied for several decades, including laboratory tests, exploratory boreholes, and the construction and operation of underground research laboratories where large-scale in-situ tests are being conducted. Major underground test facilities are listed below.

Country Facility name Location Geology Depth Status
Belgium HADES Underground Research Facility Mol plastic clay 223 m in operation 1982
Canada AECL Underground Research Laboratory Pinawa granite 420 m 1990–2006
Finland Onkalo Olkiluoto granite 400 m under construction
France Meuse/Haute Marne Underground Research Laboratory Bure claystone 500 m in operation 1999
Japan Horonobe Underground Research Lab Horonobe sedimentary rock 500 m under construction
Japan Mizunami Underground Research Lab Mizunami granite 1000 m under construction
South Korea Korea Underground Research Tunnel
granite 80 m in operation 2006
Sweden Äspö Hard Rock Laboratory Oskarshamn granite 450 m in operation 1995
Switzerland Grimsel Test Site Grimsel Pass granite 450 m in operation 1984
Switzerland Mont Terri Rock Laboratory Mont Terri claystone 300 m in operation 1996
United States Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository Nevada tuff, ignimbrite 50 m 1997–2008

Nuclear repository sites

Country Facility Name Location Waste Geology Depth Status
Argentina Sierra del Medio Gastre
granite
Proposed 1976, stopped 1996
Belgium Hades (High-activity disposal experimental site)
high-level waste plastic clay ~225 m under discussion
Canada OPG DGR Ontario 200,000 m3 L&ILW argillaceous limestone 680 m license application 2011
Canada NWMO DGR Ontario spent fuel

siting
China




under discussion
Finland VLJ Olkiluoto L&ILW tonalite 60–100 m in operation 1992
Finland
Loviisa L&ILW granite 120 m in operation 1998
Finland Onkalo Olkiluoto spent fuel granite 400 m in operation
France

high-level waste mudstone ~500 m siting
Germany Schacht Asse II Lower Saxony
salt dome 750 m closed 1995
Germany Morsleben Saxony-Anhalt 40,000 m3 L&ILW salt dome 630 m closed 1998
Germany Gorleben Lower Saxony high-level waste salt dome
proposed, on hold
Germany Schacht Konrad Lower Saxony 303,000 m3 L&ILW sedimentary rock 800 m under construction
Japan

Vitrified high-level waste
>300 m under discussion
South Korea Wolseong Gyeongju L&ILW
80 m in operation 2015 
South Korea

high-level waste

siting 
Sweden SFR Forsmark 63,000 m3 L&ILW granite 50 m in operation 1988
Sweden
Forsmark spent fuel granite 450 m license application 2011
Switzerland

high-level waste clay
siting
United Kingdom

high-level waste

under discussion
United States Waste Isolation Pilot Plant New Mexico transuranic waste salt bed 655 m in operation 1999
United States Yucca Mountain Project Nevada 70,000 ton HLW ignimbrite 200–300 m proposed, canceled 2010

The current situation at certain sites

Schematic of a geologic repository under construction at Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant site, Finland
 
Demonstration tunnel in Olkiluoto.
 
On Feb. 14, 2014, at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, radioactive materials leaked from a damaged storage drum (see photo). Analysis of several accidents, by DOE, have shown lack of a "safety culture".

The process of selecting appropriate deep final repositories is now under way in several countries with the first expected to be commissioned some time after 2010.

Australia

There was a proposal for an international high level waste repository in Australia and Russia. However, since the proposal for a global repository in Australia (which has never produced nuclear power, and has one research reactor) was raised, domestic political objections have been loud and sustained, making such a facility in Australia unlikely.

Canada

Giant Mine has been used as deep repository for storage of highly toxic arsenic waste in the form of powder. As of 2020 there is ongoing research to reprocess the waste into a frozen block form which is more chemically stable and prevents water contamination.

Finland

The Onkalo site in Finland based on the KBS-3 technology, is the furthest along the road to becoming operational among repositories worldwide. Posiva started construction of the site in 2004. The Finnish government issued the company a licence for constructing the final disposal facility on 12 November 2015. As of June 2019 continuous delays mean that Posiva now expects operations to begin in 2023.

Germany

A number of repositories including potash mines in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz have been already used for years for storage of highly toxic mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste. There is little debate in Germany regarding toxic waste in spite of the fact that, unlike nuclear waste, it does not lose toxicity with time.

There is a debate about the search for a final repository for radioactive waste, accompanied by protests, especially in the Gorleben village in the Wendland area, which was seen ideal for the final repository until 1990 because of its location in a remote, economically depressed corner of West Germany, next to the closed border to the former East Germany. After reunification, the village is now close to the center of the country, and is currently used for temporary storage of nuclear waste. The pit Asse II is a former salt mine in the mountain range of Asse in Lower Saxony/Germany, that was allegedly used as a research mine since 1965. Between 1967 and 1978 radioactive waste was placed in storage. Research indicated that brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium was leaking from the mine since 1988 but was not reported until June 2008 The repository for radioactive waste Morsleben is a deep geological repository for radioactive waste in the rock salt mine Bartensleben in Morsleben, in Saxony-Anhalt/Germany that was used from 1972–1998. Since 2003 480,000 m3 (630,000 cu yd) of salt-concrete has been pumped into the pit to temporarily stabilize the upper levels.

Sweden

Sweden is working on plans for direct disposal of spent fuel using the KBS-3 technology. However the earliest approvals for construction can be given is 2021 and at the present time the earliest commercial operation could be scheduled to start is 2030.

United Kingdom

The UK has been following the path towards geological disposal since the 2008 Defra White Paper, entitled "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" (MRWS). Unlike other developed countries the UK has placed the principle of voluntarism ahead of geological suitability. When seeking local council volunteers for stage 1 of the MRWS process, only Allerdale and Copeland in Cumbria were volunteered by their councils. The same area that was previously examined and rejected in the 1990s. Stage 2 which was an initial unsuitability screening process, was carried out by British Geological Survey (BGS) in 2010. This ruled out approximately 25% of the land area based on the presence of certain minerals and aquifers. There remains some controversy about this stage following accusations that the criteria were changed between the draft and final versions of this report, bringing the Solway Plain back into consideration, however the criteria were clearly published in the 2008 Defra White Paper, entitled Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) 2 years prior to being applied.

In June 2012, the independent geologist advising the local West Cumbria MRWS Partnership group named three rock volumes that could be potentially suitable for geological disposal of nuclear waste. These are the Mercia Mudstone Group rocks between Silloth, Abbeytown and Westnewton in North Cumbria, and the Ennerdale and Eskdale granites further south which lie within the Lake District National Park.

The decision on whether to proceed to the next stage was due to be taken in January 2013 by a group of seven councillors, forming the Executive of Allerdale and another seven from Copeland. The ten member cabinet of Cumbria County Council had a veto which would prevent the search continuing.

In January 2013, Cumbria county council used its veto power and rejected UK central government proposals to start work on a production reactor nuclear waste repository near the Lake District National Park. "For any host community, there will be a substantial community benefits package and worth hundreds of millions of pounds" said Ed Davey, Energy Secretary, but nonetheless, the local elected administrative and governing body voted 7–3 against research continuing, after hearing evidence from independent geologists that "the fractured strata of the county was impossible to entrust with such dangerous material and a hazard lasting millennia."

As of 2021, selection process for the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) is still in progress and is planned to be completed by 2040.

United States

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and the locations across the U.S. where nuclear waste is stored

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in the United States went into service in 1999 by putting the first cubic metres of transuranic radioactive waste in a deep layer of salt near Carlsbad, New Mexico.

In 1978, the U.S. Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain, within the secure boundaries of the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, to determine whether it would be suitable for a long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This project faced significant opposition and suffered delays due to litigation by the Agency for Nuclear Projects for the State of Nevada (Nuclear Waste Project Office) and others. The Obama Administration rejected use of the site in the 2009 United States Federal Budget proposal, which eliminated all funding except that needed to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing the Yucca Mountain site is no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.

In June 2018, the Trump administration and some members of Congress again began proposing using Yucca Mountain, with senators from Nevada raising opposition.

On February 6, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted about a potential change of policy on plans to use Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository for nuclear waste. Trump's previous budgets have included funding for Yucca Mountain but, according to Nuclear Engineering International, two senior administration officials said that the latest spending blueprint will not include any money for licensing the project. On February 7, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette echoed Trumps sentiment and stated that the US administration may investigate other types of [nuclear] storage, such as interim or temporary sites in other parts of the country.

Though no formal plan had solidified from the federal government, the private sector is moving forward with their own plans. Holtec International submitted a license application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an autonomous consolidated interim storage facility in southeastern New Mexico in March 2017, which the NRC expects to issue its final environmental impact statement on by March 2021. Similarly, Interim Storage Partners is also planning to build and operate a consolidated interim storage facility in Andrews County, Texas, which the NRC plans to complete their review of in May 2021. Meanwhile, other companies have indicated that they are prepared to bid on an anticipated procurement from the DOE to design a facility for interim storage of nuclear waste.

Deep Isolation company proposed a solution involving horizontal storage of radioactive waste canisters in directional boreholes, using technology developed for oil and gas mining. An 18" borehole is directed vertically to the depth of several thousands feet in geologically stable formations, then horizontal waste disposal section is created of similar length where waste canisters are stored and then borehole is sealed.


Political psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...