DOE OSTI2020
While Congress plays political football, spent nuclear fuel continues to sit in de facto interim nuclear waste storage sites throughout the country. This ad hoc approach - if it can even be called an approach - to nuclear waste management is in no one's best interests, because of financial, safety, environmental, and national security concerns with the status quo. Senate leadership had asserted that an up-or-down vote on the Yucca Mountain Project would take place in September or October 2019, but that did not occur. Rather, a conference bill was agreed to, and it provided that, although the nuclear program should receive some funding, funding was not made available for centralized interim storage ('CIS') or the Yucca Mountain Project. The President's FY2021 Budget Request does not contain any proposed funding for the Yucca Mountain Project ('the Project'). This paper will discuss the implications of that process, both for the Project itself and for the U.S. nuclear waste program more generally. In order to provide context for the current situation, this paper will begin by chronicling the history of U.S. nuclear waste management, from the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and to the present day. It will discuss the roles of the U.S. Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, federal and state political delegations, and the nuclear energy industry. The paper will then identify key themes that can be expected to affect the future of nuclear waste management in the United States. For example, it will consider whether development of additional CIS facilities is a viable short- to medium-term solution. CIS facilities may relieve immediate pressure at decommissioned or soon-to-be-decommissioned nuclear power plants; but with that pressure partially alleviated, support for building a long-term repository may be reduced. It will also discuss opposition by the State of New Mexico and others to the proposed New Mexico CIS project, based not only on siting concerns but also whether it might become a de facto repository, and whether the State of Texas and others may also be opposed, for similar reasons, to the proposed CIS facility in Texas. Additionally, the paper will examine consent-based siting and its implications for Nevada and other states that are potential hosts for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal facilities. Further, if the Project is not a politically viable solution, the paper will examine whether it is now time for serious consideration of an alternate location for a permanent repository, as well as consideration of other options entirely, such as deep geologic disposal. The paper will conclude by looking ahead to the 2020 elections. It will describe the positions of candidates (particularly Presidential candidates) on spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal options, without advocating for any particular candidate or political party. Perhaps in 2020, we will at least see a start to a solution to the seemingly intractable problem of nuclear waste management in the United States. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗