Bill Overview
Title: Spent Fuel Prioritization Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Energy to prioritize the acceptance of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel from decommissioned or decommissioning nuclear power reactors located in areas (1) with large populations, (2) with high earthquake hazards, and (3) where the continued storage of high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel poses a significant national security concern.
Sponsors: Rep. Levin, Mike [D-CA-49]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in areas near spent nuclear fuel storage sites in high-risk regions
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets areas with large populations, indicating urban centers or densely populated regions might be most impacted.
- High earthquake hazard areas such as parts of California, Japan, and other geologically active regions are directly targeted for the removal of spent nuclear fuel, impacting residents there.
- National security concerns specify locations where spent fuel poses risks due to proximity to critical infrastructure, which often coincide with large urban populations, increasing the focus on these regions.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to address a critical issue of radioactive waste, focusing on high-risk areas. This affects a significant portion of the population living near decommissioned nuclear sites, particularly in seismically active areas like California.
- Budget constraints imply that the policy cannot address all high-risk sites simultaneously. Thus, prioritization will likely be based on a combination of factors: population density, seismic risk, and national security considerations.
- A diverse set of people, from direct neighbors of nuclear sites to those in nearby urban centers, need to be represented to understand the full impact. Those living further from these areas might experience indirect benefits or no impact at all.
- The variations in current wellbeing levels across demographics will drive the differential impact of the policy. The scores consider existing stress and anxiety factors related to nuclear safety, which the policy seeks to alleviate.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (San Clemente, California)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel anxious about the safety of the storage nearby, especially with us being in an earthquake zone.
- The policy will hopefully bring us peace of mind by reducing the risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Oakland, California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing the waste near us could be moved is a huge relief given the earthquake risk.
- I hope this happens soon for our kids' safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse (Springfield, Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad they're taking steps to address nuclear waste, even if it doesn't affect me much.
- I support any efforts to reduce national security risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The proximity to the nuclear waste storage is a constant worry.
- The policy's promise to remove it could make me feel much safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Military Officer (Tucson, Arizona)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased the government is taking action where needed.
- This should have been done years ago.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Professionally, I see this policy as a necessary shift towards sustainable management.
- The focused effort to move waste away from high-risk zones is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (San Diego, California)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The storage of nuclear waste near dense populations is risky and irresponsible.
- This policy is an important first step in addressing these dangers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired School Administrator (Sacramento, California)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my grandkids visiting often, I've been worried about the nearby site.
- If the policy leads to action, our neighborhood would definitely feel safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (New York City, New York)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems targeted well, but I doubt it'll reach New York since we're not in a quake zone.
- It is nonetheless an important move toward national security enhancements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Civil Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing the risks from nearby nuclear storage is vital given our seismic activity.
- I believe the policy will positively affect infrastructure safety strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $570000000)
Year 3: $520000000 (Low: $470000000, High: $590000000)
Year 5: $540000000 (Low: $490000000, High: $610000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $650000000)
Year 100: $6000000000 (Low: $5500000000, High: $6500000000)
Key Considerations
- Spent nuclear fuel is highly dangerous, and safe transportation and storage are critical to prevent accidents.
- The proximity of key infrastructure to these decommissioning nuclear sites poses potential national security risks, justifying the federal prioritization.
- The accelerated timeline for spent fuel relocation in high-risk areas demands immediate, and potentially more expensive, transportation and storage planning.