Karl Herchenroeder
RW Monitor
2/12/2016
Legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to spend annual interest from the $34 billion Nuclear Waste Fund on the storage of U.S. spent nuclear waste is likely a nonstarter, an inside source told RadWaste Monitor this week.
According to a GOP aide, who requested anonymity, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has no plans to consider House Resolution 3643, in part because it does not address the need for the long-stalled national nuclear waste repository previously planned at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The source said the bill as drafted, which would allow the Department of Energy to tap into as much as $1 billion a year starting in 2016 to fund interim storage sites like those planned in West Texas and New Mexico, would impact overall funding for a permanent geologic repository.
The bill was introduced in September by Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. The legislation as written could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for Waste Control Specialists, a waste company located in his Texas district. WCS plans to open a consolidated interim spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Andrews County, Texas, with the expectation of submitting a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in April. The NRC also expects an application from Holtec International for a site in New Mexico, as DOE explores interim storage for America’s spent nuclear fuel.
Representatives for Conaway could not be reached for comment.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) both have argued that Yucca Mountain must be the long-term answer for spent fuel management, as per the directive in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The NWF has amassed more than $30 billion and continues to earn between $800 million and $1.5 billion in interest per year. For fiscal 2016, legislators did not include any new funding for Yucca Mountain, continuing Congress’ nuclear waste impasse.
The Department of Energy in late December laid out a three-step process for siting national nuclear waste storage facilities. First is the development of a pilot site that would house used nuclear fuel from closed reactors. Larger interim facilities like those planned in Texas and New Mexico would follow. Finally, DOE plans to develop one or more long-term geologic repositories for spent fuel and high-level waste.
This week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission released its fiscal 2017 budget request, which includes an estimated $1.4 million for the review of WCS’ application to operate its consolidated interim storage facility in Texas. In a Thursday blog post, WCS CEO and President Rob Baltzer welcomed the news, saying not many “folks had more at stake regarding the NRC budget” than his company and partners, AREVA and NAC. With the announcement, he said two components must be addressed at the federal level. Congress must authorize DOE to take title to the waste and contract with private entities, he said.
“The sooner we get federal action on these two pieces of the puzzle, the quicker we can start saving the taxpayers over $500 million a year the government is currently shelling out in judgement fees for failing to take title to spent nuclear fuel,” Baltzer wrote. “And that’ll be a win for everyone in the country.”
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has paid $5.3 billion to date in damages to electric utilities as result of DOE breaking nuclear waste disposal agreements from the 1980s. DOE estimates its remaining liabilities will total $23.7 billion.
“The federal government can either do it now, at minimal cost, because you have a number of companies and communities that have started a licensing process in a consenting community, or it can once again defer any action by letting the fuel remain where it is at the expense of the taxpayers and hope to find a solution later,” WCS spokesman Chuck McDonald said via email.
The bill gained support from various communities in Southern California, as the region prepares for the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County. Oceanside, Encinitas, San Clemente, San Luis Obispo, and Laguna have all passed resolutions in support of the bill, with Oceanside City Councilmember Jerry Kern rallying support.
On Wednesday, Kern said he understands there’s political posturing in Washington surrounding a solution at Yucca Mountain. “These people that are holding out for all or nothing at Yucca Mountain I think will end up with nothing,” he said. “So we need to come up with a consolidated interim storage plan.”
Along with waste from around the country, Kern said shipping San Onofre waste away from a populated area like San Diego to less populated regions in West Texas and New Mexico is the right move.
“This is bigger than San Onofre,” Kern said.
