Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
5/22/2015
House lawmakers and industry representatives agreed late last week that the Department of Energy is bound by the law to pursue Yucca Mountain as the nation’s repository for spent fuel, during a hearing in front of the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), one of the most vocal pro-Yucca advocates in Congress, voiced his frustration at a lack of movement on the project from the federal government, and pointed to the federal government’s “obligation” as outlined in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. “We in the Federal Government have an obligation to uphold the law to dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel, as well as honor the commitment made to States who host sites to support our nuclear defense activities, including South Carolina, Idaho and Washington State,” Shimkus said in his opening statement. “Congress needs a willing partner to host a nuclear disposal facility, as we currently have with the sites that contributed to the Manhattan Project.” The Obama Administration shuttered the Yucca Mountain project in 2010 after deeming the site “unworkable” due to a lack of consent from the state of Nevada.
Some members of the panel appearing before the subcommittee echoed Shimkus’ viewpoint. Andrew Fitz, Senior Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Washington, said that by not completing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license review, the government would lose the confidence needed to complete any repository in the future. “I understand there are those who think that Yucca Mountain is technically unsuitable,” Fitz said. “But the law provides an opportunity to prove that case in the pending NRC hearing. I also understand there are those who think that following the current scheme of the NWPA is unwise. But the method for pursuing that disagreement should be through changing the law, not disregarding it. Ultimately, given the multi-decade, multigenerational task of developing a nuclear waste repository, we will never have a repository—at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere—if the legal process for siting and licensing a repository is disregarded, now or by those who follow us.”
The state of Washington joined in the lawsuit that ultimately required the NRC to jumpstart the Yucca license review. The NRC issued an Order in November 2013 setting the path forward on restarting the Yucca Mountain licensing review in order to comply with the writ of mandamus from a federal appeals court that compelled the Commission to expend remaining carry-over funds meant for the review. A major part of the Order included the completion of the Safety Evaluation Reports, which the NRC wrapped up earlier this year. The NRC concluded in the SERs that the Yucca Mountain license application met most regulatory requirements for pre and post-closure public and environmental safety, but that issues remain concerning land ownership and water rights.
DOE ‘Schemes’ Have No Credibility, Panel Says
A majority of the panel appearing before the committee expressed a loss of credibility in DOE’s ability to move forward with any plan to address spent fuel. In early 2013, the Department released its waste management strategy which included the construction of a consent-based consolidated interim storage facility as well as the construction of a repository by 2048. “So the Department of Energy has had some plans, I will say ‘schemes,’ perhaps,” National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Subcommittee on Nuclear Issues and Waste Disposal Chairman Greg White said. “The problem is, is that they really have no credibility. There are no budgets. There are no time frames, other than the proposal that was made in 2013 as a result of the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations suggested that the Department would make substantial progress towards a national repository by 2048, some 35 years from that date.”
When asked about Washington’s view of DOE’s recent announcement to build a separate defense waste repository, Fitz remained doubtful of DOE’s ability to move forward. “First, our position has been consistent that as long as the law requires moving forward with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act process for licensing Yucca Mountain, that should be respected,” Fitz said. “I can speak to what I understand to be my clients’ policy position that pragmatically if there is another way to get waste disposed of more quickly, they are open to that, but I would echo what Mr. White said about DOE’s schemes that don’t have certainty or budget as a substitute for what right now is the legal process.”
Not So Fast on Yucca, NRDC Says
Geoffrey Fettus, Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council, meanwhile, cautioned against the Committee’s willingness to advance Yucca Mountain, especially with its many technical flaws. “Efforts to restart the failed process face an uphill climb of massive technical and institutional challenges, years of litigation, and a complete lack of meaningful state consent,” Fettus said. “Simply, Yucca Mountain leaks profusely. Licensing depends on, at this point, a fictional set of drip shields. And the State is joined across party lines to litigate the matter for as long as it takes. Restarting the Yucca fight, respectfully, Mr. Chairman, is not the way to go nor is the right way to proceed with the current flurry of premature interim storage plants.”
Nevada 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, which could take many years and millions of dollars. The NRC has also said in the SER that water and land right issues still remain that could derail the review.
