DOE Floats Nuclear Waste Consolidation Plan Amid Staffing, Oversight Concerns

The Department of Energy is asking Congress for new legal authority to manage spent nuclear fuel and move past the longstanding impasse over Yucca Mountain, the only site currently authorized for long-term nuclear waste disposal in the US. The project in Nevada has been stalled for years amid vigorous state-level pushback, resulting in the US leaving most of its spent fuel in interim storage.

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish laid out the request earlier this month at hearings in the House and Senate, where lawmakers raised concerns about the agency’s ability to carry out the plan.

DOE proposes establishing a series of Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses (NLICs) that consolidate interim dry storage, spent fuel reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and permanent disposal. These campuses would be federally supported and built in states that volunteer to host them. At the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Sept. 15, Energy Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) emphasized that any new campus policy must “complement existing law, and the designated federal deposit site at Yucca Mountain,” rather than discard it.

Twenty-six states have responded to DOE’s request for interest in the campuses, and six of those (Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia) have signed non-binding memorandums of understanding to explore hosting a campus. Garrish said reprocessing at these sites would recover usable plutonium and uranium from spent fuel, but they would still need options for permanent disposal since reprocessing leaves leftover radioactive material that needs to be buried.

Garrish asked Congress to enable the program by ending Yucca Mountain’s legal monopoly on disposal, giving DOE the authority to negotiate agreements with host states, and authorizing interim storage at campus sites. He also asked lawmakers to make reprocessing an official policy “where technically and economically feasible,” and allow DOE to set rules for which fuel gets moved first.

DOE is aiming to have more formalized host agreements with states by late September, with contracts signed by Dec. 15. Latta signaled caution regarding the timeline, stating that “there’s a long way to go to develop durable state agreements, and durability is key.”

Garrish stated at the hearing that DOE projects the program could draw $51 billion in private investments and create up to 25,000 jobs. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) also noted the potential financial impact at the hearing, stating that “the economic benefits of the proposed nuclear lifecycle innovation campus program could amount to billions of dollars over decades and include workforce and tax-based benefits that could transform communities.”

Pushback and concerns

Reprocessing has struggled to gain commercial traction in the US since it is extremely costly, especially when compared to making fuel from mined uranium, something Garrish acknowledged at the hearing.

The question of cost was one of the sharpest points of disagreement. DOE plans to use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for disposal. However, the administration’s draft legislation also floated the idea of using this fund to finance private recycling ventures. Garrish did not commit either way, calling it a “policy draft for discussion.” House Committee leadership, however, expressed a desire for caution, with Latta warning against “irresponsibly raiding the nuclear waste fund” and Guthrie cautioning against “rushing any policy that would undermine our obligations to ratepayers.”

Representatives from utility regulators and industry groups who testified at the House hearing also pushed back on the plans to use the fund for recycling. Stacey Paradis of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners said the fund should stay reserved for permanent disposal. Maria Korsnick of the Nuclear Energy Institute agreed recycling should be funded through other sources until it’s proven commercially viable. Jared des Rosiers of the Decommissioning Plant Coalition said the fund’s purpose is removal and disposal of waste. Greg White of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition said the same, adding that recycling and disposal are “complementary and not competing” strategies.

At the Senate hearing on Sept. 23, Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) emphasized in her opening statement that ensuring proper funding for disposal was among her chief concerns. Despite collecting “over $50 billion” in fees from ratepayers for nuclear waste disposal, “Congress did not appropriate sufficient funding, and the licensing, regulatory, and program costs were never fully covered,” she said.

The DOE’s proposal also drew scrutiny from House Democrats at the hearing over DOE’s capacity to execute the plan. Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL) noted that the Office of Nuclear Energy has lost about a third of its staff, seven of the eight members of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board were recently dismissed, and that an NRC commissioner was fired, leading to questions and concerns about the oversight behind such a long-term undertaking. When asked by Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA) why the administration’s draft legislation would eliminate a review board, Garrish suggested consolidating the independent safety review functions under the NRC instead of the board.

Some observers were more critical of the DOE’s plan. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy non-profit, called DOE’s proposal an “utter misstep” saying it makes promises that others would have to ultimately have to pay for.