Beyond Nuclear - Yucca Mountain

As reported by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Shockingly, this dangerously bad bill, H.R. 2699, passed the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee's Environment and Climate Subcommittee on September 26, 2019 by voice vote. Not one peep of opposition was uttered*, not even by several House Democrats who wisely and courageously opposed identical legislation just last year. (*See the footnote at bottom of this post.*)

Thus, citizen resistance is most urgently needed against this latest incarnation of the Mobile Chernobyl bill, H.R. 2699!

But not only would the bill, H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019, speed the opening of the Yucca Mountain dump, targeted at Western Shoshone Indian land in Nevada. It would also authorize the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) taking ownership of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel at consolidated interim storage sites -- as currently targeted at Hispanic areas of New Mexico (Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance) and Texas (Interim Storage Partners, including Waste Control Specialists, Orano of France, and Nuclear Assurance Corporation) in the Permian Basin. This would be a major reversal in decades-long U.S. high-level radioactive waste policy and law. It would create the very high risk of CISFs becoming de facto permanent, surface storage, "parking lot dumps." DOE has itself warned, in its Yucca Environmental Impact Statement, that surface storage, combined with loss of institutional control over a long enough period of time, would result in container failure, and consequent catastrophic releases of hazardous radioactivity into the environment.

So what does the passage of H.R. 2699 by the U.S. House Environment and Climate Subcommittee of the Energy & Commerce Committee mean?

This bill is very similar, or even nearly identical to, the dangerously bad Shimkus bill that passed the House last year. That bill was called H.R. 3053, or the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018. It passed not only this same subcommittee, and the full House Energy & Commerce Committee, but even on the House floor, on May 10, 2018, by a vote of 340 in favor, 72 opposed.

This year's version, H.R. 2699, is simply called the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019.

U.S. Representative John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, has been a primary sponsor of both last year's bill, and this year's bill. So too has U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney, Democrat of California.

Shimkus recently announced that he will not be seeking re-election on the November 2020 ballot.

Beyond Nuclear has strongly opposed the Shimkus bill from the very start. So too have many other anti-nuclear, environmental, and environmental justice groups across the country, such as the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (of which Beyond Nuclear is a member group), to name but one.

As mentioned above, this bill supports both the Yucca Mountain, Nevada permanent burial repository, as well as private so-called "interim" consolidated storage facilities. H.R. 2699 would speed up the opening of the Yucca dump, by gutting its licensing proceeding before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It would also significantly increase the amount of high-level radioactive waste that could be buried at Yucca, from the current 70,000 metric ton limit, to 110,000 metric tons. (There are currently over 80,000 metric tons of commercial irradiated nuclear fuel in the U.S., and another more than 10,000 MT of DOE-jurisdiction irradiated nuclear fuel and other high-level radioative waste, as from the nuclear weapons complex, research reactors, the Nuclear Navy, etc.)

The bill would also authorize the U.S. Department of Energy to take title to -- ownership of -- commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, even at an interim site. This is currently prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended.

The reason for this wise precaution and prohibition included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, is that a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF, also known as monitored retrievable storage, MRS, centralized storage, away from reactor -- AFR -- storage, etc.), de-linked from a permanent repository, runs the very high risk of becoming de facto permanent surface storage, or a "parking lot dump." As mentioned above, this could lead to catastrophic releases of hazardous radioactivity into the environment over a long enough period of time, if and when containers fail, are not maintained nor replaced, and leak their forever deadly contents. (Irradiated nuclear fuel is hazardous for a million years into the future, as the U.S. EPA was forced to acknowledge, under hard won court order, at the Yucca Mountain Project.)

So what's next for H.R. 2699? The bill must go to the full U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee. It also must go to several other U.S. House committees, for their review. In addition to Energy & Commerce, the bill must go through the following U.S. House committees (and subcommittees): Natural Resources (Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands); Armed Services; Budget; and Rules. Once past all those committees, only then could the bill go to the full House floor for an up or down vote.

After that, it, or a companion bill, would require passage by the U.S. Senate. This is where H.R. 3053 was stopped last year. The Senate never took up that bill. But this year, H.R. 2699 has already been taken up in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, held a "Discussion Draft" hearing on May 1, 2019, re: S.___________, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019. That is, the McNerney-Shimkus bill, only just in "Discussion Draft" form; it has yet to be assigned a Senate bill number.

If both Houses of Congress pass H.R. 2699 in identical form, it could then go to Trump for his signature and enactment into law.

However, if the bills differ in any way, they would have to be reconciled in a U.S. House-Senate conference committee, returned to both Houses' floors for up or down confirmation votes, and then transmission to the White House for the president's signature, and enactment.

(Please note, there is other, dangerously bad, highi-level radioactive waste legislation under consideration on Capitol Hill. One example is S. 1234, the Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019. S. 1234, sponsored by U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), is also pro-Yucca dump, and pro-consolidated interim storage, à la H.R. 2699. There are also good nuclear waste bills introduced this congressional session. These would include the bipartisan, bicameral Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act, introduced by the Nevada congressional delegation in both Houses of Congress.)

Because the Nevada congressional delegation, in a bipartisan manner, has fought so hard against the Yucca dump, for so long, there is every possibility that this bill can be stopped in the U.S. House. (But, as always, our efforts as concerned citizens and anti-nuclear and environmental justice activists could prove decisive.) Just last May, for example, funding for the Yucca dump was nixed in the U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee, and full committee. It was a close vote in the full committee -- 27 opposed to restoring Yucca dump funding in Fiscal Year 2020, 25 in favor. Nevada Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, who serves on the House Appropriations Committee, cast a deciding vote against Yucca funding. (Another Republican U.S. Rep. simply missed the vote.) Several Democratic members of the committee defected, voting for Yucca funding restoration, making the vote as close as it was in the end.

However, U.S. House Democratic leadership, incuding Speaker Nancy Pelosi from California, Appropriations Committee chairman Nita Lowey from New York, and Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, have sided with the Nevada delegation in opposing any Yucca dump funding in FY2020.

That lack of funding undermines this House Environment and Climate Subcommittee mark up voice vote in favor of H.R. 2699. There would be no funding to carry out any of the authorizations, mooting the bill.

For this reason alone, there is every indication that the bill could simply die in one or more of the other House committees to which it must go for further review and approval. And House Speaker Pelosi, given her agreement with the Nevada delegation's opposition to Yucca funding, could simply refuse to allow the bill a House floor vote.

However, as was shown last year with the 340 to 72 blow out vote in favor of the Shimkus bill, and this year's very close vote to nix Yucca dump funding in FY2020, our grassroots efforts could well prove decisive.

It is essential, as we have done for years already, that we continue to shine a bright light on the dangerous flaws of H.R. 2699. And we must continue to pressure U.S. Representatives who value environmental justice, environmental protection, human health, safety, and security, as well as the wise use of taxpayer and ratepayer funds, to speak out and lead the effort to block H.R. 2699. Where are our champions in the U.S. House of Representatives who oppose both the Yucca dump, as well as CISFs, and the Mobile Chernobyls they would launch across most states, by the thousands or even tens of thousands, over the course of not years but decades?! They need to step up now! And we need to urge them to, in the strongest terms.

The next major juncture in this particular fight will likely happen yet this month, in the congressional Appropriations conference committee between the House and Senate, re: Fiscal Year 2020.

Right now, neither the House nor Senate Appropriations bills have any funding for the Yucca Mountain dump included. We need to keep it that way.

There is some danger that U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (Republican-Tennessee), chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Energy & Water Appropriations, will seek to get an amendment passed on the Senate floor, to restore Yucca dump funding in FY2020. If Alexander were to make such a move, we would have to push back hard. (Alexander has also announced that he will not be seeking re-election on the Nov. 2020 ballot.)

As mentioned above, the most contentious parts of H.R. 2699 include the gutting of the Yucca dump's licensing proceeding, in order to speed its opening, and the significant expansion of its disposal capacity. The Nevada delegation can be expected to fight this tooth and nail, as they have for 32 years now, ever since the "Screw Nevada bill" (the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987) singled out Yucca Mountain as the only site in the country to be further considered as a high-level radioactive waste permanent burial repository (dump). As more than a thousand environmental, environmental justice, and anti-nuclear organizations have done for a generation, we must stand strong in solidarity with Nevada and the Western Shoshone Indian Nation -- whose land Yucca is on -- to vigilantlly resist and block the dump.

Another very contentious part of H.R. 2699 would authorize (make legal) DOE taking ownership of (title to, and liability for) commercial irradiated nuclear fuel at a private consolidated interim storage facility (CISF). This is currently prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, in order to prevent "temporary" from becoming de facto permanent surface storage, with all the very high risks that would result over time.

This aspect of H.R. 2699 represents a radical, major departure from U.S. nuclear waste policy dating back decades. Interim storage has been the responsibility of the nuclear utilities which generated the irradiated nuclear fuel in the first place, and made a filthy killing by doing so. Permanent disposal (the dump) has been the federal government's responsibility since the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. But now, H.R. 2699 would speed up the title transfer, putting the liability on DOE (that is, the cost on federal taxpayers), even for interim storage. The nuclear power utilities know full well how catastrophically dangerous irradiated nuclear fuel is (despite their deceptive PR pronouncements re: absolute safety and security to the contrary), and are determined to offload all risks, costs, and liabilities onto the public ASAP. This is actually a major driver, perhaps the major driver, for H.R. 2699, as well as CISFs, in the eyes of the nuclear power lobbyists.

Sites currently targeted for CISFs include southeastern New Mexico, as well as western Texas. In fact, the two sites are but 39 miles apart. If both CISFs were to open, and reach their maximum proposed capacities, the amount of irradiated nuclear fuel "temporarily" stored on either side of the NM/TX border, de facto permanently at the surface, would be three times the amount currently targeted at Yucca for burial (213,600 metric tons, versus 70,000 MT).

Since their election last November, leading Democrats in New Mexico (including the governor, U.S. Rep. Deb Haaland, and the NM State Public Lands Commissioner) have been speaking out, and leading the fight, against Holtec's proposed 173,600 MT CISF in their state.

In Texas, Republican governor Greg Abbott has spoken out against any expansion of the radioactive waste dump at Waste Control Specialists (already a national "low" level radioactive waste dump), which Interim Storage Partners has targeted for this CISF.

Hopefully, both the NM and TX congressional delegations will rise to the occasion of this life and death fight, and work hard to block H.R. 2699's changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, that would grease the skids for CISFs in their states, by allowing DOE to take title to commercial irradiated nuclear fuel, even at an interim site. This would then enable DOE, with taxpayer funds, and perhaps even nuclear power ratepayer funds, to pay for all costs associated with the construction and operation of the CISFs in NM and/or TX -- including a very handsome profit margin for the private companies involved -- which is, after all, their main motivation, of course.

Another contentious issue is the current inclusion of varying amounts ($10 million to $25 million) of federal taxpayer funding, in both U.S. House and U.S. Senate Appropriations bills, to support CISFs in FY2020.

This fight is very much on. So please contact your U.S. Represenative, and both your U.S. Senators. You can phone your Congress Members' D.C. offices via the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Given that Members of the U.S. House are back in their home districts for the next week or two right now, this would be an excellent opportunity to get together with other concerned friends, colleagues, and neighbors of yours, to even request a face-to-face meeting with your U.S. Representative.

Urge them to oppose funding for the Yucca dump, and to oppose funding for CISFs, in Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations. And urge them to oppose H.R. 2699, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2019.

(Thank you to Don Hancock of Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, NM, for his insights that contributed to this analysis. Responsibility for any errors remains with Beyond Nuclear.)

(*The only peep of criticism that took place was, ironically, from a past supporter of the Shimkus bill. During opening statements of the subcommittee mark up session, U.S. Rep. Matsui (D-CA) stated that H.R. 2699 was flawed, because the Yucca Mountain dump "is not realistic." She also said that she was disappointed that only H.R. 2699 was being marked up, and not her pro-consolidated interim storage facility bill. What's ironic is that Rep. Matsui has voted in favor of the Shimkus bills, at every turn (subcommittee, committee, House floor), for years. This should give pro-Shimkus bill subcommittee chairman Tonko (D-NY), and committee chairman Pallone (D-NJ), pause. H.R. 2699 will remain controversial, even in the minds of former supporters like Mastui, unless it's amended. We emphasize that we certainly strongly disagree with Matsui's pro-CISF position, as laid out above.*)