More than 30 people gathered to learn about nuclear education programs at a meeting organized by Southern Nuclear Operating Company on the evening of June 6 at the Georgia Power office in Augusta, GA. Faculty and staff from Augusta Technical College and Aiken Technical College gave presentations on associate-degree programs that prepare graduates to work in nuclear-related fields. Mindy Mets, NWI� Program Manager for the SRSCRO, presented information about the unique nuclear workforce needs of the region. These needs are driven by new nuclear development, such as Savannah River Site's (SRS) MOX facility, the AP1000 plants under construction at Southern Company's Plant Vogtle and SCANA's V.C. Summer site, plus the aging workforce at SRS and other existing facilities. 

"Southern Nuclear and Plant Vogtle are fortunate to have, in their nearby area, two outstanding Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Programs (NUCP) supplying our workforce needs with the next highly skilled workers," said Nora Swanson, Southern Nuclear Workforce Development Coordinator. Ms. Swanson was referring to Augusta Technical College's Nuclear Engineering Technology Program and Aiken Technical College's Radiation Protection Technology Program. Degrees from these programs are recognized nationally due to the rigorous program standards. 

Ms. Swanson stated, "The joint session was a unique forum bringing together industry and education. This type of partnering helps our communities understand the needs and opportunities, along with how to prepare for a career. The goal is to insure that students who enroll in the programs understand the industry and can become successful."

At least 25 people signed up to receive more information about the programs presented.

A summary of four related Yucca lawsuits were highlighted last month. There has been recent action on two of those lawsuits. Below is a summary on the recent lawsuit rulings as they were identified last month.

(Lawsuit #3 - NARUC v. DOE) - Yucca Fee Re-Payment

On June 1, 2012, a federal appeals court says the Energy Department did not complete a review required to continue collecting $750 million a year in fees from operators of nuclear power plants. And, asked the Department of Energy to explain why it should be able to continue to collect fees for its nuclear waste fund despite the fact that there is no operating national repository. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did not order the fee collection suspended. Instead, DOE officials were given six more months to complete the review. The court's decision to remand the case back to DOE, with a decision due within six months, falls short of what the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and other petitioners initially wanted. They had asked the court to put an end to the payments altogether. A spokeswoman said the Energy Department will comply with the order.

In the ruling on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman concluded that although the court has the authority to suspend the fees, it instead chose first to ask DOE to revisit its 2010 determination that the fees could still be collected. The court could then potentially reconsider the issue at a later date. Silberman wrote that the government's argument appeared to be that Energy Secretary Steven Chu could effectively, "like an ostrich, put his head in the sand" when it came to taking into account various factors that could determine the cost associated with disposing of nuclear waste. The argument is "farfetched, almost absurd," Silberman wrote.

(Lawsuit #4 - New York et al v. DOE) - Waste Confidence

The federal appeals court on June 8, 2012 threw out a rule that allows nuclear power plants to store radioactive waste at reactor sites for up to 60 years after a plant shuts down. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not fully evaluate the risks associated with long-term storage of nuclear waste. The court said on-site storage has been "optimistically labeled" as temporary, but has stretched on for decades. The appeals court wrote that the NRC "apparently has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository." The appeals court said the NRC should complete a detailed environmental review of on-site storage or explain why one is not needed.