YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Safeguards and benefits are ripe for consideration

On March 29, the Review-Journal published an editorial on Yucca Mountain under the headline: “Washington, make an offer on Yucca Mountain.” The editorial deserves thoughtful consideration.

Yucca Mountain was designated as the nation’s site for geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste in 2002. That decision, made by the Congress, overrode Nevada’s veto and is the current law of the land. When that occurred, Nye County passed resolutions to “actively and constructively engage” the Department of Energy to (1) protect the health, safety and environment of Nye County and its citizens; (2) manage the project for long-term success; and (3) ensure transportation safety and obtain sustainable economic development.

While Nye County supports advancing the completion of the license application process, we have consistently held that if it could not be done safely, we did not want it, either. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently completed five volumes of Safety Evaluation Reports of Yucca Mountain that determine Yucca Mountain can safely contain spent nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste for a million years.

The Review-Journal editorial was timely in that the license review will restart when and if Congress provides funding, which could be this year (FY2016). Nevada will have the opportunity to defend its opposition to the repository.

However, I believe it is time to start considering safeguards and benefits that will protect Nevada when/if the repository is built. Nevada should negotiate now from a position of strength to obtain legally binding agreements between the federal government and Nevada jurisdictions that include:

■ An intervention process that includes a substantive state role in providing oversight and advice for any storage facility/repository, including influence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s exercise of its “stop work” authority.

■ A monitoring process: A role and funding for Nevada’s universities that would focus on public health and environmental monitoring activities designed to provide long-term protection for local communities and the state of Nevada. This could include funding to develop UNR and UNLV and/or a new national laboratory as centers of excellence for radiation safety, nuclear engineering and nuclear medicine.

■ A benefits/impact assistance process: What does Nevada want? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as written, includes provisions for “oversight authority” and “payments equal to taxes.” Congressional legislation will be required to complete the license application process to build the Yucca Mountain repository and should include benefits for Nevada and local jurisdictions. This expanded “benefits process” for Nevada could be addressed in four major areas:

Water: The western watershed allocation of water resources, coupled with desalination plants on the California coast or Mexico, could be revised to provide more water to Nevada.

Land transfers: More than 80 percent of Nevada is owned, controlled or managed by the federal government. Land withdrawal and public land management can be changed as part of any enabling legislation.

Program implementation activities: Development of Yucca Mountain includes rail and road transportation improvements and the repository itself. Economic benefits and activity would result from the siting, construction and operation of storage and/or disposal facilities. This could include Interstate 11 construction and a rail route of our choosing that could avoid shipping waste through metropolitan areas while allowing connectivity between Reno and Las Vegas.

Direct payments: Repository delays are costing taxpayers $500 million a year now and are projected to cost $23 billion before we can site a different repository. Existing law includes provisions for direct cash payments. Negotiating for benefits could provide Nevada and its local communities between $200 million and $500 million per year to host the repository.

The opportunities associated with completion of Yucca Mountain are for us to define and Nevada’s for the asking. We ought to throw everything we want at the wall, prioritize those wants and secure legally binding commitments to that end. If we treat our glass as half full, we can be part of the solution, as opposed to being part of the problem in solving this national issue — a national issue that is not going to go away.

Dan Schinhofen is a Nye County commissioner.