Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
6/20/2014
The Department of Energy’s loss of credibility in the handling of the nation’s high-level nuclear waste was the dominate obstacle impeding a successful waste management program identified last week during the Bipartisan Policy Center’s first regional meeting held in Boston. The BPC’s project, named “America’s Nuclear Future: Taking Action to Address Nuclear Waste,” aims to expand the conversation on implementable nuclear waste solutions to a more national and regional audience by identifying barriers to implementing a waste management strategy. The lack of progress and what some see as ‘political gamesmanship’ has left the public doubtful about the federal government’s ability to deal with the waste. “I think the number one barrier is confidence. I think people have no confidence left in some of our federal agency, whether it’s the NRC or DOE, in terms of how we are going to move this forward,” said Sarah Hofman, executive director of the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commission. “I would encourage going with the Blue Ribbon Commission solution of coming up with a separate federal corporate organization or something of that ilk.”
Changes Needed in Appointment Process?
The loss of confidence stemmed partially, former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford said, from an appointment process that alienates the public. “I don’t think the general public in Nevada or in any other potential host site for either a permanent repository or an interim storage facility is going to have the sense that the NRC is making its decisions as though they were from the ten-mile radius around that facility,” Bradford said. “Right now, it just seems to me that the appointment process is so skewed that someone who seems to approach the job with that perspective might well not be confirmable. We’ve reached a point where the industry voice in picking the nominations is too dominate for the process to have wide credibility in the more skeptical percent of the public, and I think that really has to change as part of a reform to the nuclear waste licensing and siting process.” The loss of credibility spills over to the NRC, especially when some question the integrity of the licensing process, Bradford said.
Solutions for Restoring Credibility?
The notion of taking the responsibility out of DOE resonated with many in attendance at the meeting as a solution to the credibility problem. “I do think that this issue, following up on President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation, getting the waste program management independent of DOE, would be helpful,” Bradford said. “That doesn’t have anything to do with the current personnel of DOE. It’s just that it has been there a long time in various ways and there just isn’t a lot of credibility left.” David Wright, former chairman of the South Carolina Public Service Commission, also wanted to see a stand-alone agency take control of the issue. “It would be great if we could get it out of DOE, and get it as a stand-alone or some kind of quasi-outfit because I think that will take a little of the political dynamic away,” Wright said. “How we get there, though, is that we still need to get Congress to sign off on it, and Congress is going to be involved no matter what because, bottom-line, the purse strings, the funding comes from there. Unfortunately, this isn’t about science or the rule of the law. I think there is largely at play on the federal level a lot of political gamesmanship, so that means the political will is not there yet.”
A larger local role in the process could also help establish more credibility to any potential host site as well, Bradford said. “The credibility issues are exacerbated by the preemptive features of the Atomic Energy Act, especially in the waste area, where essentially Nevada had the sense that the waste was being stuffed into their state because they lacked the political muscle to deflect it someone else,” Bradford said. “A wiser process that would in the end be more credible and trustworthy would at least allow potential host states not only input on the front end in terms of consent, but also some substantial independent voice, perhaps a veto in the licensing process. Some of the decision-making needs to be moved closer to the public.”
