By George Lobsenz
Amid discussions in Congress and at the Pentagon on expanding the Navy’s nuclear-powered fleet, Idaho officials Thursday announced an agreement with the Energy Department’s Naval Nuclear Propulsion Office and the Navy to extend naval fuel operations at DoE’s Idaho National Laboratory beyond 2035.
Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter (R) and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden joined with Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program Director Adm. Kirkland Donald and Frank Jimenez, general counsel of the Navy, in announcing the agreement, which they said maintains limits on the amount of nuclear material that the Navy can bring into Idaho.
Kathleen Trever, a former state official who now serves as a consultant to the governor on DoE nuclear waste issues, said the new agreement retains the limits set in a settlement between the department and Idaho in 1995 on nuclear waste storage and cleanup at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
The 1995 settlement allowed the Navy to store a maximum of 65 metric tons of spent fuel limits at INL through 2035; the spent fuel is brought from nuclear-powered Navy ships for analysis and research at INL. The Navy, which currently has 25 metric tons of spent fuel at the site, was required to ship all spent fuel off the site by 2035.
However, the new agreement with the state permits the Navy to keep a maximum of 9.75 metric tons of spent fuel at INL after 2035 to accommodate continuing Navy operations.
The nuclear waste issue has been–and remains–a sensitive one in Idaho, where state officials sued DoE to force cleanup and removal of nuclear waste from INL, which previously was a major nuclear weapons production site. Idaho. The lawsuit resulted in the 1995 settlement, which also set deadlines for cleanup at INL and shipment of waste out of state. It also limited the amount of spent fuel that could be kept at INL by DoE, allowing the department to bring in an additional 55 metric tons above its then-existing spent fuel inventory of 260 metric tons.
Despite the 1995 agreement, state officials have repeatedly battled with DoE over key cleanup issues at INL, most recently over the department’s plan for removing buried waste at the site, which state officials say is inadequate.
In a statement on the new agreement with the Navy, Otter alluded to state sensitivities about spent fuel at INL, saying: “It ensures Idaho will help the Navy continue important research for its nuclear fleet while protecting Idaho from becoming a spent fuel repository by default.”
Wasden added that the new agreement “maintains Idaho’s productive relationship with the Navy and keeps enforceable limits on spent fuel shipments, inventory and storage conditions.”
Donald and Jiminez said the Navy and DoE appreciated Idaho’s “trust and confidence” and said the agreement reflected the strong safety record of naval operations at INL.
The officials said the extension agreement also called for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program to refurbish its facilities in Idaho for long-term operations. Trever said that involved refurbishing the water-filled spent fuel pool where research is conducted, and building new dry storage facilities by 2023 to hold spent fuel awaiting shipment out of state.
The nuclear Navy began operations at the Idaho National Laboratory in 1949, constructing the first nuclear submarine prototype for the USS Nautilus. Since then, the Navy has used the site to build other prototypes and train personnel to operate reactors for submarines and surface ships.
Current Navy operations at INL focus on spent fuel examination and preparation for disposal of the spent fuel at the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. However, recent developments suggest the Navy activities at INL may increase in the future.
In particular, skyrocketing oil prices have spurred interest in Congress and at the Pentagon in making future Navy ships nuclear-powered, potentially raising the profile of the naval nuclear propulsion research operations at INL.
In particular, Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), leaders of the House Armed Service Committee’s seapower subcommittee, have been pushing legislation to require that the Navy make its new cruisers nuclear-powered.
While the high up-front costs of designing and building new reactors is an impediment to congressional action to require nuclear propulsion for the new cruisers, Navy studies have indicated long-term cost savings if oil prices remain high.
Nuclear proponents also say reactors would provide security advantages for Navy ships because they would not have to enter potentially dangerous foreign harbors to refuel, as diesel-powered vessels now must.
The defense authorization bill recently approved by the House Armed Services Committee contained provisions requiring reactors for new cruisers, and ordered the Navy to also consider nuclear for amphibious assault ships.