Republicans have a two-track plan for pushing through Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste site, but Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is once again poised to derail the effort.
The idea is to keep the Senate energy and water spending bill Yucca-free to avoid sending it through Reid, the most strident opponent of the site. House Republicans, who insist that regulators must decide whether the Nevada site can permanently store waste as outlined in a 1982 federal law, will get a chance to add funding for licensing in a conference committee to reconcile the bills.
The Senate version of the bill includes a provision to permit pilot interim waste storage facilities and allow waste storage at two private sites in New Mexico and Texas. The House iteration includes additional money for Yucca licensing. Republicans hope the interim storage pilot program will ensure Yucca licensing survives in the final draft.
“That was kind of how we figured it would work, and we will try to keep both of them in there,” Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, told the Washington Examiner. “It’s either both or none.”
Rep. John Shimkus, the House’s most ardent Yucca booster, said he was “disappointed” the Senate bill didn’t include funding for Yucca licensing. Still, the Illinois Republican said he was open to green-lighting interim storage projects as long as Yucca got its due.
“We’re not moving interim storage without any assurance that Yucca is moving forward. That’s pretty clear and that’s not anything we haven’t said since day one,” Shimkus told reporters.
Reid’s office told the Washington Examiner that Republicans should get comfortable staying put.
“Since the Yucca Mountain project is dead, there will not be an energy and water bill that includes funding for Yucca Mountain,” Reid spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said in an email.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it doesn’t have enough money to finish its licensing review for Yucca. House Republicans for the past couple years have tried to funnel it more money through spending bills only to have the then-Democratic Senate block it.
But Reid is choosing to retire rather than seek re-election in 2016, which has Yucca advocates both on and off Capitol Hill optimistic. Industry lobbyists see the push this year as a trial run, with the next Congress in the post-Reid era providing more fertile ground for passage.
Still, Reid’s eventual exit won’t necessarily pave the way for Yucca. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., also strongly opposes the site, as do much of the Silver State’s political establishment on both sides of the aisle.
A vote regarding the interim storage program at Thursday’s Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, however, indicated that some Democrats might be amenable to the GOP one-two punch.
Climate change is one of those reasons.
Republicans and some Democrats have advocated for nuclear power as a means to address global warming because it generates no greenhouse gas emissions, which most scientists blame for manmade climate change. Nuclear also provides large amounts of base-load power compared with wind and solar energy, whose ability to supply power fluctuate with breezes and sunshine.
While most committee Democrats supported an amendment from Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to strip the interim storage program from the energy and water spending bill on Thursday, six joined Republicans in opposition. A pair of those Democrats — Sens. Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Chris Murphy of Connecticut — are some of the more vocal senators on climate change.
Schatz said he voted against the Udall amendment because the United States will “have to contend with the question of nuclear waste at some point” and that the pilot program and storage at private facilities “gives the [Energy Department] more options.”
Schatz also didn’t knock down the idea of sending more Yucca licensing money to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“I haven’t decided on that yet,” he told the Examiner.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said lawmakers concerned about climate change should come around to support Yucca and other waste storage options. He noted some, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., have shown a willingness to engage on those issues.
“I think the logic is there’s no way in the world of dealing with climate change unless you have nuclear power,” Alexander said.
Still, most Democrats want to follow the findings of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The independent panel convened by President Obama in 2010 said state, tribal or local governments should apply to host a permanent waste site rather than have it forced on Nevada. It also said nuclear waste should move to interim sites only if a permanent site has been selected.
The problem with the interim storage pilot program, Udall said, is that it allows transfer of waste to interim sites before a permanent one has been selected. The fear is that such facilities would become de facto permanent waste repositories.
“There is no permanent facility, so what happens is you have a stranded permanent facility,” Udall said.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., added that he was concerned the Energy Department might be liable for damages at private interim sites in New Mexico and Texas.
Alexander said he wasn’t sure whether the department would be on the hook in such cases, but didn’t envision a problem.
“They’re extensively regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Alexander said. “If the private company is guilty of negligence I assume they’ll be sued.”
