In an editorial printed in the Chicago Tribune yesterday, House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) wrote that “building a repository at Yucca Mountain would still be the fastest, best and most viable solution” for the country’s spent nuclear fuel. Though the Blue Ribbon Commission, the Obama Administration, and a bipartisan group of Senators who introduced draft nuclear waste legislation last month all supported a consent-based siting approach for a geologic repository, “Choosing a site for a nuclear waste storage facility, either permanent or interim, may begin on optimistic terms, but political opposition builds over time, making the process neither simple nor swift,” Shimkus wrote. “We are all frustrated by the failure to dispose of nuclear waste on the timetable provided in current law,” Shimkus wrote. “Citizens want a sound nuclear policy and a safe solution for spent nuclear fuel disposal. The current law focusing on the Nevada project remains the best solution and, in time, the most likely to succeed.”
Interim storage, Shimkus wrote, would only solve the problems of removing spent fuel from power plants “if it can be sited and developed quickly and inexpensively,” which isn’t a sure thing. Shimkus also noted concerns that interim storage could increase costs. “Nuclear electricity consumers are already financing spent fuel disposal. In fairness, why should they pay for two major facilities when one would suffice? Why should they pay for spent fuel to be transported twice?” Shimkus asked in the op-ed. Shimkus recently asked the Government Accountability Office to analyze the financial impact of interim storage to consumers and taxpayers. “[A]ssessing the pros and cons of interim storage, it does not seem to offer either economic or safety benefits,” Shimkus wrote. “It would divert time, effort and resources away from actually solving the waste problem once and for all.” Read the column online here.
