In 1987, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the most recent federal legislation on the issue to-date. The legislation named Yucca Mountain as the sole repository for disposal of the country's used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. As a general matter, storage of nuclear materials is usually quite safe. However, storage systems are subject to “leaks, failures, and attack,” which can lead to significant environmental, economic, and public safety issues. So, it is unsurprising that the Yucca Mountain proposal faced swift backlash from local groups and Nevada lawmakers that persisted for decades.
Yucca Mountain is located on federal lands in Nye County, Nevada, a rural county according to the USDA. Opponents of the project cited technical and logistical issues, including how to transport waste and other engineering problems. In addition, the native Western Shoshone tribe objected to the project, expressing concerns about dumping waste on sacred lands as well as long-term safety concerns.
The Las Vegas Sun reported on protests against the project in 2019 and interviewed Ian Zabarte, Principal Man for the Western Shoshone Nation.
“Our land’s bleeding,” Zabarte said . . . . Zabarte worries about the long-term commitment of the federal government to keeping Yucca safe—and if nuclear waste is stored there, it would require a long-term commitment.
Last week, President Biden’s energy secretary nominee confirmed the Biden administration's opposition to the Yucca Mountain project. Without any political momentum, the Yucca Mountain project is effectively dead.
Yet, the issue of where to put nuclear waste is very much alive, and the current problem of managing radioactive nuclear waste remains overwhelmingly rural. No one wants radioactive waste in their backyard. NPR reports, “No state seems to want it. So instead, dozens of states are stuck with it.”
Getting stuck with radioactive waste is not the result of just drawing the short straw though. In 1992, in New York v. United States, the Supreme Court held that coercive federal incentives to encourage states to take on radioactive waste exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Put differently, Congress could not commandeer states to take nuclear waste, but many other incentives are still permitted. These other tools include tax revenues, jobs, and long-term stable income. An earlier post in this blog noted that some rural communities opt to have a nuclear waste sites because of the economic incentives, in the same way rural town might compete for the site of a new prison and the jobs it provides.
Allegany and Cortland counties in western New York, the subjects of New York v. United States, are both rural counties. Many other commercial and federal radioactive waste sites are also in rural locations, depicted in the Department of Energy map below.
Now, a new nuclear waste repository project proposed for outside Carlsbad, New Mexico raises familiar problems. NPR reports one local resident’s feedback.
"Why should we be the ones to take this negative project on and put up with the consequences?" says Rose Gardner, a florist who lives 35 miles from the proposed site. "We didn't get any of the nuclear generated electricity. We're not even involved."
The project is still pending approval from federal regulators, but other locals are supportive of the project because of the economic growth it promises. The Carlsbad Current-Argus estimates 150 jobs will be created for a support facility, in addition to employment at the repository itself.
So, the cycle seems to be repeating itself, and with a record number of nuclear power plant closures slated for 2021, the question about what to do with radioactive materials from those sites only looms larger. One atomic energy expert recommends the urgent appointment of a senior negotiator or czar to facilitate federal, local, and tribal negotiations. Maybe this would be a good start.
3 comments:
This is a great and timely consideration of the infinite ramifications of nuclear power. The offer of economic incentives to vulnerable and impoverished rural and indigenous communities feels more like coercion: trading physical safety for economic security. At least the Yucca Mountain plan is discarded for the time being. It seems like there are few, if any, solutions for nuclear waste right now. As technology is funneled toward space travel and other innovations, perhaps a push toward nuclear waste storage solutions should be emphasized. It seems like there isn't a priority in addressing the concerns felt more acutely by rural communities, which is truly unfortunate.
Although Congress cannot commandeer the states to take on nuclear waste, it seems like rural areas don't necessarily have a choice. Offering significant financial incentives to a rural community who is need of revenue and good-paying jobs, makes it almost impossible for them to turn down. There's a reason why there are no nuclear waste sites in affluent areas -- they're dangerous. As your blog entry discussed, they are prone to leaks and other issues. This has me thinking about whether there would be more investment in alternative disposal methods if rural areas stopped allowing these nuclear waste sites in their communities?
The paying off of small towns to accept the waste reminds me of tort law. Specifically when entire neighborhoods are awarded $1,000 a household to compensate for the loss of housing value due to the opening of a pollutive plant nearby. The victims are essentially being paid a one-time lump sum for perpetual damages caused by the plant. I would want to see exactly how dangerous nuclear waste is (what percentage of the waste deposits fail to contain the radiation?) before I declare this compensation evil. If the waste truly is not that dangerous, then these incentives might be harmless subsidies for struggling communities.
After doing some light research it seems nuclear waste doesn't take up very much space. All of the nuclear waste that America has accumulated so far can fit on a single football field (but the waste would need to be stacked 10 yards high). I see that some experts believe a single large facility, built deep underground in a remote region, could store centuries worth of upcoming nuclear waste. Presumably there is at least one area in North or South Dakota that is remote enough for such a facility to harm few people if there is a failure of some sort.
Post a Comment