Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
5/15/2015
The “time is now” to move forward on used nuclear fuel policy, Congressional lawmakers said this week in remarks at the Nuclear Energy Assembly conference in Washington, D.C. Members from both parties highlighted the issue as a major problem holding the nuclear industry from expanding in the future, but they said that they are actively working on solutions. “The future of this industry depends on our ability to solve this problem,” Assistant Democratic Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said. “It’s a big problem; it’s an expensive problem; and it’s something we need to deal with. I have been working very closely with this Administration trying to make sure we get this problem solved.”
Different lawmakers, though, advocated different solutions to the used fuel problem. House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Chair John Shimkus (R-Ill.), one of the most vocal pro-Yucca advocates, implored nuclear industry leaders to help push Congress on moving the Yucca Mountain project forward. Citing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s recently-released Safety Evaluation Report for Yucca Mountain, which found the design met most regulatory requirements for public health and safety, Shimkus argued the science and the legal argument all point to Yucca. “We are closer now than we’ve ever been, but you have to be engaged,” Shimkus said. “The amendments in 1987 identify Yucca Mountain as the site. 30 years and $15 billion dollars, we need to finish the job, and the time is now.”
Shimkus said earlier this year that he anticipates introducing a bill aimed at incentivizing the state of Nevada to embrace Yucca Mountain, mainly through economic and infrastructure development. He did not have an update on that bill this week, but the Illinois lawmaker did offer a glimpse into his motivation for the bill. “I think you need to get representation in the state of Nevada,” Shimkus said. “You have to have boots on the ground, because we have got some really interesting things and colleagues and friends who are working hard to find a pathway. There is a compelling argument on the job loss in Nevada. These high paying DOE-jobs for multi-generations would be a loss to a state that says it wants to diversify its economy.” He added, “There are openings in the state of Nevada. It is not unanimous in opposition. I’m afraid if we don’t seize this opportunity, we’ll spend another 30 years and another $15 billion being embarrassed about the inability of the government to follow the law and keep our promises.”
The House Energy and Water Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2016, which passed earlier this month, included $175 million reserved for Yucca Mountain, of which $150 million would go to the Department of Energy and $25 million to the NRC. On the Senate side, Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has voiced his support for Yucca Mountain, and has said that in conjunction with interim storage, funding for the project could make the Senate’s final appropriations legislation for next year. Nevada, though, has argued the site does not meet scientific standards. The state has raised approximately 300 contentions to the Yucca license application. The NRC still needs to adjudicate those complaints before the licensing review can move forward. The NRC has said in the SER that water and land right issues still remain that could derail the review.
Solution Is Not Yucca or Bust, Murkowski Says
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), meanwhile, called for a departure from the “either/or” thinking on interim storage or Yucca Mountain as the sole solution to the problem. She indicated that this type of thought process on nuclear waste policy does not allow nuclear energy to grow. “This is not an either/or proposition,” Murkowski said. “I am and have always been a strong supporter of Yucca, but I also recognize we need more than Yucca. We need to have the opportunity for more, and that is what our legislation will allow.”
Hearing on Senate Bill Expected Next Month
Murkowski introduced, along with Sens. Maria Cantwell (D- Wash.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), legislation earlier this year that would revamp the nation’s nuclear waste policy, including the addition of interim storage. Murkowski said this week that her committee will hold a hearing on the bill next month. “I hope that we can have a good vibrant conversation on the back end of the fuel cycle, and really, going forward, the future of nuclear power in this country,” Murkowski said on the hearing.
Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), who is the Ranking Member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, also echoed Murkowski’s charge to adopt a compromised approach to nuclear waste disposal. “We have at a number of times, I think, scared the industry because we supported interim storage,” he said. “We supported it not to the detriment of Yucca because we fully supported Yucca, but if it happened, it was in the distant future. We need to do something now, as well. We need a policy that compromises, in that we look at the long view and do something now. For the last several years, it has been either/or. I do hope that there will be that change this year to proceed because we have that responsibility to make decisions.”
Interim Storage Worth It?
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair James Inhofe (R-Okla.), however, did not see any advantages to including interim storage in the waste discussion. “I question whether interim storage would be worth the effort,” he said during his remarks. “It won’t be safer or more secure than our current situation because a new facility would need to meet the state’s regulations. So, I also question the money, considering if it would save money, as the DOE has previously estimated the cost of transporting 70,000 tons to be approximately $20 billion. I’m also skeptical of them creating a new governmental agency. I don’t believe there is one time in the 20 years I have served the U.S. Senate that I have supported a new government agency.”
A consent-based pilot consolidated storage facility is the preferred strategy of the Department of Energy to satisfy the nation’s spent fuel disposal needs, but due to language in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act the Department cannot consider other sites beyond Yucca Mountain in Nevada without Congressional approval. Moniz, however, in an announcement this spring, said that the Department would begin to take “affirmative steps” to siting a consent-based pilot interim storage facility. DOE has been working on generic analyses of how to move forward with an interim storage facility, but now DOE will take a much more proactive approach in talking with actual communities about hosting a facility, Moniz said. Construction of a facility, though, cannot occur without Congressional approval.
