Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the use of Federal funds for the private interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill generally prohibits the use of federal funds, including funds from the federal Judgment Fund, for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel by a privately owned facility. The prohibition does not apply to (1) manufacturers of nuclear reactors or fabricators of nuclear fuel that accept the return of spent nuclear fuel, (2) nuclear power plants that accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage, or (3) privately owned interim storage facilities that are currently in operation. Funds may also be used for costs associated with transferring or storing spent nuclear fuel at sites owned by the Department of Energy.
Sponsors: Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on nuclear energy and employed in nuclear sectors worldwide
Estimated Size: 10000000
- Approximately 43 countries have operational nuclear reactors, which may be impacted indirectly by the U.S. legislation as it affects private storage facilities of spent nuclear fuel, an issue of global concern given the nuclear fuel cycle and storage challenges.
- Within these countries, numerous stakeholders including nuclear energy companies, governments, and citizens relying on nuclear energy may experience impacts on energy policy and strategy.
- Domestic and international private companies involved in the management and storage of nuclear fuel would be directly affected, as well as their employees.
Reasoning
- The U.S. nuclear energy sector supports approximately 100,000 direct jobs, with indirect economic dependencies extending to hundreds of thousands more.
- Changes in federal funding prohibitions could impact interim storage facilities' business models, especially those not currently operational, leading to shifts in employment or operational focus.
- Wellbeing impacts are to be simulated considering Cantril scores reflecting personal and occupational stability concerns.
- Since the policy includes caveats for most existing players, not all individuals in the sector will be equally impacted, leading to varied responses.
- General public and residents near nuclear facilities may have indirect relationship dynamics influenced more by perceived safety and local economic influences instead of immediate financial concerns.
Simulated Interviews
Nuclear Engineer (Oak Ridge, TN)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy makes sense as it encourages long-term solutions rather than short-term, privately handled interim storage options.
- It shouldn't affect my job directly, but the industry as a whole might see more stringent oversight.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Corporate Manager at a Private Storage Facility (Carlsbad, NM)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would severely limit our business prospects.
- We might need to explore other services besides storage for business sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Cape Canaveral, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that steer away from privatizing such hazardous waste are good for environmental protection.
- Not directly involved in policy but it could lead to more research opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Resident near a Nuclear Plant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The government's control over nuclear waste seems reassuring.
- I hope this means safer storage solutions closer to home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired Nuclear Plant Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about the long-term impacts on waste storage management.
- While it doesn't affect me directly now, there are still family members working in the industry who might be impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Public Policy Analyst (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a positive step towards more controlled nuclear waste management from a public standpoint.
- Would be interested to see state-level responses.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Developer (Boston, MA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though indirectly related, our solutions could see increased demand if the policy encourages more robust monitoring and reporting systems.
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 |
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector (Harrisburg, PA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might increase workloads temporarily as facilities adjust strategies, but generally supports stricter oversight.
- My job security and purpose in ensuring safety feels supported by such policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Union Representative (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're concerned about job impacts if there's any loss of federally funded projects affecting our workers.
- Our focus is on negotiating security and understanding broader implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Civil Servant at Department of Energy (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Redirection of funds will require tweaking of our public communication strategies.
- My role might evolve as we deal with public perceptions of policy impacts on nuclear storage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Long-term implications on private nuclear storage market due to lack of federal funding.
- Adjustment requirements for DOE storage sites to manage potentially increased volume.
- International treaties and obligations may create external pressures regarding nuclear fuel management.