Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
7/11/2014
Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) was unsuccessful in attempting to eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations bill during debate on the House floor this week before the full House voted to approve the bill. Titus offered an amendment that would have eliminated the $150 million in the bill for the Department of Energy to continue activities related to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designates Yucca Mountain as the site of a repository for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. “After decades of losing time and over $15 billion having been squandered on this boondoggle, the current administration has rightly said it is time for a new strategy,” Titus said during floor debate on her amendment. “Unfortunately, some in this body still believe that we should force nuclear waste that has been created in their districts on a region that does not have a single nuclear power plant.”
Pro-Yucca supporters, led by House Republicans, easily defeated the amendment when it went to a vote, though. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) pleaded with opponents to let the science determine the suitability of the site. “We are going to find out, through the scientific study, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to end up saying that this is the best place on the planet Earth for the long-term nuclear storage of waste,” Shimkus (R-Ill.) said during the floor debate. “I know my colleagues here don’t believe that I am all science-based, but in this case, I am. We have an independent commission that is ready to finish its work and render a decision, and all we are asking is to let us do it. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is not safe, we are done. Yet, if it is safe for a million years, I think the folks from Nevada are going to say: Okay. Let’s work together to make this feasible. Let’s bring jobs and economic growth.”
The House bill includes $150 million for the Department of Energy “to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,” which designates Yucca Mountain as the site for a repository; and $55 million to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the adjudication of DOE’s Yucca Mountain License application. The bill also includes language that would prevent any future tampering into the Yucca Mountain adjudicatory process. DOE has deemed Yucca Mountain as an “unworkable” site, and instead is attempting to pursue a strategy to begin a consolidated storage program for the nation’s high-level waste while a final repository solution is worked out, although legislation is needed to allow this to move forward. DOE’s FY 2015 budget request included language to request this legislation, but the House appropriations bill denies this request.
Titus Unsuccessful In Attempting to Remove Provision to Prevent Closure of Site
Titus also was unsuccessful in an attempt to remove language that would prevent DOE from using funds to close Yucca Mountain as a site. Titus argued that even if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found the site unsafe, DOE would have no power to close the project. “Indeed, if this amendment is not adopted and instead the DOE is prohibited from ever closing Yucca Mountain, how can we believe anything that is being said or done in relation to this proposed dump site?” Titus said. “I tell you, Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not a wasteland, and I urge passage of this amendment that would strike that language prohibiting the DOE from ever closing Yucca Mountain regardless of whether it is found to be safe or not.”
Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) countered that this language would only apply for the spending year, not forever. “I would remind the gentlelady that this doesn’t mean that Yucca Mountain can never be closed,” Simpson said. “An appropriation bill is a one-year appropriation bill. That is why we carry this language in each appropriation bill. We need to wait for the safety review by the NRC to be done to decide what we are going to do moving forward, instead of political decisions that have been made on Yucca Mountain in the past.”
White House Threatens Veto
Earlier this week, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy threatening to veto the House bill due to concerns over a number of provisions, including the Yucca Mountain funding. “The Administration objects to the DOE funding provided in the bill for Yucca Mountain and is disappointed with the Committee’s rejection of the practical solutions proposed in the Administration’s nuclear waste strategy,” the statement said. “As reflected in the FY 2015 Budget request, this strategy incorporates important and workable elements for a successful waste program, such as consent-based siting, interim storage of waste, and program funding reforms that are essential to the success of a Nuclear Waste Program. Similarly, the Administration objects to funding provided in the bill for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application.”
Barton Seeks Pilot Storage Facility Amendment
In a somewhat surprising move during this week’s floor debate on the House bill, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) introduced an amendment that would have authorized DOE to begin a pilot interim storage facility. Barton has been a long-time supporter of Yucca Mountain, but it appears his stance has softened, especially with Texas’ growing support for potentially hosting a pilot storage facility. The Congressman introduced the amendment with the intention of withdrawing it immediately. “The citizens of [Nevada] have serious reservations about accepting high-level waste in their State, and as a consequence, they have managed, through various bills over the years, to prevent that facility from going forward,” Barton said. “The amendment that I have before the body today would authorize a pilot program through the Department of Energy, on a competitive basis and its being consent-based by State, to allow interim storage at one or more facilities.” He added, “I think this is a good amendment. It would cut the Gordian knot that has constrained us for over 30 years, and if we were to be allowed to vote on it, I am absolutely certain the House would pass it.”
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) disagreed with Barton’s amendment appearing in the appropriations bill, but he was open to discussing it in the next Congress. He supported the idea of a near-term and long-term track to dealing with the waste, but he indicated that Yucca Mountain could not be left behind. “There is a lot of discussion, particularly on the Senate side, on an interim storage site,” Upton said. “I know that some states like Texas would very much like to participate in such a program. My concern with that approach is this, that I don’t want to see that move without a permanent, full-time site like Yucca be left in the ditch, that, in fact, we might see, ultimately, the two combined.” He added, “I would like to think that in the next Congress, when we have got some new faces perhaps on both sides of the House and the Senate, that we will be able to move a bipartisan bill to, in fact, deal with both long-term and short-term in terms of interim, and I look forward to being a party to try and get those two groups together.”
The Senate, for its part, considered a bi-partisan bill last year that would authorize a consent-based interim storage facility. The bill currently resides in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where it has sat since then-Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R- Alaska) introduced their co-authored bill. Among its provisions, the bill would create a new independent agency to handle the nation’s high level radioactive waste as well as create a consent-based siting approach for interim storage, drawing from some of the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. In its appropriations bill, the Senate included $89 million to the program, while placing an emphasis on moving the bill to a vote.
Office of Nuclear Energy Loses Some Funding
Also during this week’s debate, the House passed an amendment to the energy spending bill that decreased funding going to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy and transferred it to the Army Corps of Engineers for harbor maintenance. The amendment, introduced by Reps. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) and Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), took away $73 million from nuclear energy to add $57.6 million for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Huizenga argued that the Office of Nuclear Energy was an over-funded portion of the bill. “I will point out, though, that it is appropriated for $899 million this year, a level that is $36 million above the President’s budget request, $10 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, and $243 million above the level proposed by the House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2014.,” Huizenga said during the floor debate. “So it doesn’t seem to me we are exactly raiding that when everybody has said that we are overfunding that portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a great way of impacting our economy to help create jobs and to help create the momentum to continue to move forward.”
Simpson voiced his opposition to the amendment, but he ultimately lost the vote. “That is what seems strange about this, doing what we all think is the right thing to do using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance,” Simpson said. “By increasing that, we hurt nuclear energy, which I don’t think is the intent of the gentlelady or the gentleman from Louisiana who want to do this. Furthermore, I oppose the reduced funding for nuclear energy research and development, which is a critical part of this bill’s support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently generates 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity, and it will continue to play a large role in the future.”
