During a Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, U.S. Senator John Curtis (R-UT) highlighted Utah’s growing leadership in nuclear energy and pressed witnesses on the federal government’s responsibility to provide states with regulatory certainty and a clear path for managing nuclear material. Utah was recently down-selected as one of six sites for nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. Curtis emphasized that the state’s participation remains exploratory and said federal officials must answer key questions about long-term waste management, state involvement, and how the program will keep pace with technological innovation.
As Utah is under consideration to participate in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus initiative, questions remain about how projects would move from federal demonstration to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-regulated commercial operations, as well as the long-term responsibilities of participating states. Curtis has emphasized the need to establish a clear regulatory pathway for nuclear materials and waste while ensuring states remain involved in decisions, previously pressing NRC leadership on the need for predictable licensing, greater coordination with Utah officials, and regulations that can keep pace with emerging nuclear technologies.
The full transcript of Senator Curtis’ questioning is below.
Senator Curtis: Thank you, and thank you for this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses. This is very important. I’ve heard a lot of estimates about how much energy we need, and I don’t think there’s any plan out there that gets us there without a considerable amount of nuclear energy—far more than I think most people comprehend. And Utah wants to be a first mover in this field and has worked hard to place themselves in that position. But we need a clear regulatory pathway forward for us. And as I think all of you know, Utah’s been down-selected as one of the six sites for these nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses. And a lot of my remarks will be through those lenses today.
I would also note that Utah’s participation is exploratory. And what I mean by that is there are some important questions that have to be answered. Dr. Hough, you talked about the other aspects of this, but the one thing that I would like to bring up that wasn’t really mentioned is: Does the state stay as a participant in decision-making, or does the state end up holding the bag for what started as a pilot program of storage, and then nothing else comes along? And also, does this keep pace with innovation? What we’ve talked about today is based on what we know about recycling today, and I think we all know that we could get some innovation out there that would dramatically change this. Does this program keep pace with that, or does it get locked in time?
You all have mentioned, no matter what we do with recycling, we are still going to have waste that has to be dealt with. I would say, in speaking somewhat on behalf of Utah, realizing that this really rests on the shoulders of our state leaders, we’re interested in this, but we don’t want to get in that position of looking around and saying, “Well, now what?” Right? We didn’t quite have all these answers before we jumped into this. I think that means clear regulatory pathways, safety standards, meaningful state participation and partnership, and a critical path for managing nuclear material from generation all the way through disposal of it.
Mr. Barrett, let me start with you. What does coordination between DOE and the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)] look like as these projects move forward?
Lake Barrett, Chair, American Nuclear Society Nuclear Waste Policy Task Force: As far as between DOE and NRC, DOE is the first mover. They are the promoters, as was mentioned by the Chairwoman. The NRC is an independent safety regulator that will oversee everything at the end before it can go commercial. So, they are the safety assurers. DOE and its partners in industry and the state as a partner, too, propose it, and the NRC assures the safety. So that’s the basic reaction.
Curtis: What’s your advice for what protection levels, what federal commitments, should the state look for as they consider these campuses?
Barrett: Well, governors today, I think, are quite savvy in this. Clearly, as I think the governor from Wyoming said 30-some years ago, you’re dancing with the 800-pound gorilla here—the federal government. So you need to protect yourself going forward. But there are ways to do that through contractual relationships. There must be a true partnership between the federal government, the host state, and the private industry participants who are really going to be doing the work. They’re going to probably be owning many of these facilities, and all of that work will be under the safety umbrella to give extra assurance to the American people that whatever is being done is being done safely to protect the environment now and, in the future, as well. So, the states need to be very wise about how they do this. These are not going to be Indian Treaties from the 19th Century.
Curtis: I do think all of us here today can see a scenario much like Senator Brooke explained, like, “We didn’t sign up for this.” And states very likely could be saying, like, “No, we didn’t sign up for a pilot program that permanently leaves this with no jobs, no economic development, and everything else.” So, it’s about accountability, I think, for the federal government.
Ms. McMurrian, your organization represents states that deal with these. This is a good opportunity for me to get some free advice for my state. What would you advise states as they look at these opportunities?
Katrina McMurrian, Executive Director, Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition: I think that there’s a lot that can be done short of legislation, actually. I think the Nuclear Waste Policy Act lays out a good framework, and I think you can look at that. But I think there are things that DOE could be doing in the short term, and you all can encourage them or direct them to do some of these things. I think that a program plan, similar to how we think of it in the public utility space, is almost like an integrated resource plan, where you ask DOE to put together a plan for this multigeneration program, see how your states and other contender states fit into that, give input, and hopefully have an engaging dialogue with them. Have them set up an independent office, again, that focuses strictly on these issues so that you have a more direct line person to go to, to have this engagement. You’ve got great people at DOE now. I think it just would be nice to revert back to that plan that was set up in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, to have a dedicated office to this.
So, again, that would facilitate states’ engagement, and then also making sure that there’s money for DOE to engage with you all properly and to make sure that we don’t get down the road and there’s not sufficient funding. And, of course, fixing the Nuclear Waste Fund, getting access to that money for a disposal program, would really facilitate all of these things.
Curtis: As you can see, I would love to manipulate this whole hearing, but I’m out of time, and I’ll yield. Thank you, Chair, for this hearing and our witnesses for being here. You can see this is clearly an important topic for Utah.
