Idaho — along with Utah, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Tennessee —is one of five finalist states being considered to host one of three federally designated Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, an initiative of the Trump administration designed to spur a nuclear power renaissance.
The plan is to choose three states to spur nuclear power research and innovation by manufacturing nuclear components and handling the full nuclear cycle, including reprocessing of spent nuclear rods (to allow reuse) and long-term nuclear waste storage. The promise is $50 billion in investment, 25,000 jobs and $10 billion in state tax revenue for each of the three designated states.
This current approach is flawed and needs revision because it does not take into full account the relative strengths and weaknesses of each competing state.
For instance, Idaho’s ace in the hole is Idaho National Laboratory, which has safely handled nuclear materials for decades and is the nation’s primary location for proving cutting-edge small reactor designs. INL has a proven track record of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for the Navy and other purposes — work conducted from the 1950s through the early 1990s. While that mission transitioned to storage, INL is now advancing reprocessing and recycling technologies for future deployment as part of its work on fuel-cycle solutions.
The problem with the current Trump plan is that Idaho is not geologically suitable to serve as a permanent repository. Yet we would be expected to store such if selected as one of the three states. The INL does not have the geologically stable rock formations necessary for long term storage. It is located over the critical Snake River Plain aquifer. Of note, INL is in the final stages of repackaging waste temporarily stored there — and much of that is being shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, much from military facilities and past INL programs.
Concern over permanent siting of waste in Idaho is generating significant pushback This is addressable.
Idaho and other involved states need to push the Trump administration now to revise the plan to truly create a sustainable U.S. nuclear future. The key is specialization by focusing on what each state is best suited for, not forcing the states to take on projects they are unsuited for.
Consider that the two finalist states with expertise in nuclear reprocessing and testing advanced nuclear designs are Idaho and Tennessee. But neither has the ideal geologic formations for permanent storage.
In contrast, both Louisiana and Utah have salt beds that work for safe, stable permanent storage. There is another possibility for long-term storage that would require some political courage. That is to move forward and open the facility already built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It has been heavily studied and is geologically sound. Trump explored reopening it but gave in to political pressure from Nevada. It is time to revisit that decision.
The best overall approach would focus on the relative strengths of each state. My recommendation would be to choose either Idaho or Tennessee (or both) to focus primarily on reprocessing of the U.S.’s current stockpile of spent commercial nuclear fuel. Then, select another site or two for long-term storage, with the benefit that reprocessing will dramatically reduce storage volume. Finally, equitably divide the benefits of manufacturing and research among the winning states.
The federal government should also provide enhanced carrots to willing states. Right now the proposal is predicated solely on the promise of future federal dollars. A smarter approach would provide specific, contractual benefits for the winning states to provide measurable enhancements to their communities.
For instance, Idaho struggles to adequately fund education. The federal government could contract to boost Idaho’s school endowment, which generates annual revenue for Idaho’s schools. Funding for Idaho aquifer enhancement would ease water concerns. Other states might need enhanced infrastructure or similar tailored needs that benefit local communities.
The U.S. needs a strong, vibrant nuclear future. The current plan falls short and needs to be reworked to maximize the benefits and minimize the downsides by focusing on the specific strengths and weaknesses of each competing state, coupled with contractual benefits.
Idaho can play a key role in bringing about a revised plan. Our congressional delegation and Gov. Little have close ties to the Trump administration. They should use that influence, perhaps in concert with other offering states, to push the administration to revise the plan along these lines.