Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
10/30/2015
House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) this week reiterated that Yucca Mountain must be included in any budget negotiations for interim storage of nuclear waste to go forward. Simpson has voiced support in the past for both Yucca Mountain and interim storage, but with the caveat that there must be progress on the underground nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. “We have always said from our side, that if you’re willing to put money in for Yucca Mountain, we will go along with you on a consent-based pilot program,” the lawmaker said at a Bipartisan Policy Center event. “They have never been able to do get that, so consequently, we have never been able to do an interim storage pilot program. And we’ve just locked heads over that. I’m hopeful this year that we will be able to keep money in the conference report that has money for both Yucca Mountain for the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the licensing process and do a consent-based [siting]. The reality is, if we were to open Yucca Mountain tomorrow, it would be filled. So, we are going to have to do something beyond that.”
With the announcement late Monday night that congressional leaders and the White House have reached agreement on a two-year budget deal, Simpson said Tuesday he believes an energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal 2016 “could get done quickly.” The House has passed its bill but the Senate has not. After the Senate passes its version, the two bills would be reconciled in conference between the two bodies. Simpson cautioned, though, that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could block the Yucca appropriations as he has done in the past. Simpson also warned that without the Yucca funds, there will be no authorization for interim storage. “My authorizers feel like, if we do anything but Yucca Mountain, it takes pressure off of Yucca Mountain, and they want to keep pressure on Yucca Mountain because this is the law of the land. We all know that Yucca Mountain was not mothballed because of the science behind it. It was mothballed for political reasons.”
The House energy bill provides $150 million to the Department of Energy for nuclear waste disposal activities as outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and $25 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so it can complete the Yucca Mountain licensing review. The Senate bill includes $97 million for DOE’s used fuel disposition program, of which $30 million would go toward the department’s interim storage strategy, $3 million would be used to study a defense waste repository pathway, and $64 million would be directed to spent fuel research.
Public Confidence in DOE Waste Management Needs Improvement, BPC Finds
Stakeholders across the country agreed the United States needs to reinvigorate confidence in its ability to dispose of nuclear waste, the Bipartisan Policy Center said in a policy brief released this week. The brief offers a variety of stakeholder opinions the BPC heard during regional meetings intended to renew a national dialogue on nuclear waste disposal, with a consensus agreeing that Department of Energy delays in disposing of the waste have eroded public confidence.
“The history of the U.S. waste management program has seriously eroded trust and confidence in the ability of the federal government—and particularly the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—to meet its statutory obligation to effectively manage and dispose of nuclear waste,” the brief says, citing areas of general agreement among stakeholders. “An independent agency of some type should be established to assume responsibility for the nuclear waste program; that agency should be insulated from Congress and from political influence and should enjoy continuity of management and access to funding.”
The stakeholder concerns echo similar worries revealed by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. In an effort to remedy the problem, the BRC in 2012 recommended that a separate entity take control of the waste obligations. A local environmental activist group leader reiterated those thoughts this week during a panel at the BPC event. “Again, it’s the consent-based process,” said Beatrice Brailsford, nuclear program director for the Snake River Alliance. “People don’t want this enormous task to be left in the hands of the DOE. I don’t know if we do know the next thing looks like. Obviously, one of the problems with both just leaving it to an individual community or leaving it where it is, is that nuclear waste isn’t regulated right now in a way that really makes sense from a state perspective. So I think that is one of the issues we have to come to terms with.”
The Bipartisan Policy Center, through its Nuclear Waste Advisory Council, has spent the better part of the last two years conducting regional meetings and issuing policy briefs on the status of the nation’s nuclear waste management program. This marks the seventh such brief issued in the past three months.
