Disputes over several pieces of language did not stop the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee on Thursday from sending legislation to advance interim and permanent storage of U.S. nuclear waste to the full panel for consideration.
Democrats offered three amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 during a markup session, but withdrew all three in favor of further negotiation of wording in the bill. The legislation then passed out of subcommittee on a voice vote.
The proposal from subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) is intensely focused on eliminating obstacles to the Department of Energy’s development of a deep geologic repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But it also charts a path for building interim facilities that would consolidate more than 75,000 metric tons of spent reactor fuel now stored at nuclear plants around the nation until the final location is ready.
The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Department of Energy to site and build a repository for the nation’s spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Congress in 1987 amended the legislation to specify that the facility be built at Yucca Mountain. DOE has yet to meet its legal requirements, and the Treasury has now paid out $6 billion to nuclear utilities that are stuck with their waste. That liability could ultimately exceed $20 billion.
“Nuclear waste management policy is not a partisan issue, and there is an urgent need for Congress to address this challenge as taxpayer liability continues to skyrocket due to the federal government’s unfulfilled obligations,” Shimkus said during the markup.
Shimkus’ legislation would require the Department of Energy to by June 1, 2019, submit to Congress a study on the necessity and feasibility of one or multiple “monitored retrievable storage facilities.” It would also allow DOE to enter into agreements for storage of the waste at privately operated facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – and, in fact, instructs the department to prioritize such deals unless the federal government can more quickly and cheaply locate, build, and operate the facility.
A sticking point for Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and other subcommittee Democrats is the bill’s requirement that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make a final ruling on construction of a permanent repository before DOE can enter into any agreement for an interim facility. The California lawmaker submitted an amendment to eliminate that mandate.
“Without centralized, safe repositories for spent nuclear fuel, the current storage process presents environmental and security risks for our communities,” Peters, who represents the San Diego area, south of the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Plant, said during the markup. “The bill we are considering today takes important steps to advance both interim and permanent storage priorities. But by linking interim storage with the Yucca Mountain project, it could also impede efforts to remove spent nuclear fuel from places like San Onofre.”
The Trump administration for fiscal 2018 is proposing funding for both DOE and the NRC to resume the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, which the Obama administration suspended in 2010. But the process would take years, and the beginning of operations could be decades away. Meanwhile, two private companies have already filed applications for NRC licenses to build and operate consolidated interim waste storage sites.
New Jersey-based Holtec International hopes by 2022 to open a facility in southeastern New Mexico with capacity for 120,000 metric tons of spent fuel. Waste Control Specialists, of Dallas, has eyed a 40,000-metric-ton site at its storage complex in West Texas; however, the company in April asked that the NRC suspend review of its application, and WCS’ parent company has said it might never receive the license.
Nonetheless, both companies informed members of the environment subcommittee of their concerns about the language in the bill as it stands. Shimkus said the issue raised by Peters would be discussed further as the markup process continues.
He offered similar messages for the two other proposed amendments: one, from Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.), that would strip out language strengthening the federal government’s power over water rights to carry out waste storage, one of the key issues in the battle with Nevada over Yucca Mountain; and the other, from Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), that would establish a pilot program for licensing, building, and operating one or more interim storage sites.
In each case, the lawmakers appeared satisfied that their concerns would be considered and withdrew their amendments.
There is no schedule yet for the bill to be marked up in full committee, but the aim is for that to occur “sooner rather than later,” a spokesman said.
Environment subcommittee members noted Nevada’s strenuous objections to becoming home to other states’ nuclear waste, but apart from discussion of the water rights question there was no strong rhetoric at the markup against building the Yucca Mountain repository. None of Nevada’s congressional delegation sits on the panel or the full Energy and Commerce Committee.
Shimkus’ bill features a long list of measures that would promote the federal government’s ability to build its Yucca Mountain repository:
- The new legislation would permanently set aside 147,000 acres of land in Nye County, Nev., the area covered by the Yucca Mountain Project Map. The energy secretary would then have authority over the area for development, testing, licensing, construction, operations, closure, and post-closure of a disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. All prior public land orders and rights-of-way would be revoked.
- Under the proposal, the federal government would not be liable for damages resulting from mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing activities conducted within the withdrawal area.
- The Department of Energy would be prohibited from taking any steps toward construction of a repository for defense-only waste until the NRC had ruled on the repository construction application. The Obama administration had planned separate storage sites for defense and commercial waste, while they would both be stored at Yucca Mountain.
- The director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management would be provided with a five-year term. There is no current director, as the Obama administration closed the office that had oversight of the Yucca Mountain project.
The legislation does offer some sweeteners to Nevada, including payments from the Nuclear Waste Fund through a benefits agreement with the state and a “Sense of Congress” that DOE should focus on waste transport routes that avoid Las Vegas. But that is unlikely to undercut the state’s brewing legal battle against the project.
“This legislation usurps the State’s water rights, removes the cap on the amount of waste originally allowed at the proposed Yucca Mountain facility, ignores the majority of Nevadans who do not want a repository in our state, and overlooks the 329 congressional districts that would be along the waste’s shipping route,” Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) said in a prepared statement ahead of Thursday’s markup. “This is another show of hostility toward Nevada by Republicans who want to shove this dangerous project down our throats. It’s bad science and worse policy.”
Staff at the state’s Agency for Nuclear Projects have already identified 10 concerns with the legislation, according to Executive Director Robert Halstead. Among these, he said by email: Shimkus’ plan would make Yucca Mountain the only repository for nuclear waste, eliminating the Obama administration’s plans for separate sites for commercial and defense material; it would require the NRC to rule on the license application within 18 months of the bill’s passage, rather than the three-year-window under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; and it would “unduly expedite transfer of control over lands and interests in lands at the Yucca Mountain site to DOE jurisdiction, preempt state air quality permits and requirements, and preempt state water access permits and requirements by declaring DOE water use not detrimental to the public interest.”
