Understanding the Nuclear Waste Repository Proposal: A Briefing for the 38th District

Over the past several weeks I have heard from a great many people across Pickett, Scott, Fentress, and the rest of the district who have questions about news reports connecting our counties to a possible long-term nuclear waste repository. Because there has been a good deal of confusion about what has actually been proposed and what has not, I want to lay out plainly what is known, what remains unsettled, and what I have asked the Governor to do on behalf of the people I represent.

Background

In January of this year, the U.S. Department of Energy invited states to express interest in hosting what it calls a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus, which is a federal concept for bringing the major stages of the nuclear fuel cycle together in one place, including uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, and the disposition of nuclear waste. The Department received twenty-eight applications from twenty-six states, and in April the State of Tennessee submitted a proposal positioning Oak Ridge as the premier site, citing our state's nuclear ecosystem, its history going back to the Manhattan Project, and the workforce and research infrastructure built around Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex.

In July, the Department of Energy named Tennessee one of five finalists to move forward, alongside Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah, and the Governor's administration signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the Department to continue exploring the opportunity. Federal officials have projected that the campuses could generate roughly twenty-five thousand jobs nationally, attract as much as fifty billion dollars in investment, and produce up to ten billion dollars in state and local tax revenue. Those are serious numbers, and I understand why state leaders view this as a significant economic opportunity for Tennessee.

How the Upper Cumberland Was Identified

The concern in our region does not come from the Oak Ridge portion of the proposal. It comes from the long-term waste disposal portion.

The public version of Tennessee's proposal to the Department of Energy was released with substantial redactions, but the portions that were left visible included an analysis of seismic risk intended to help identify where nuclear waste might be stored underground over the long term, and that analysis identified four counties on the Cumberland Plateau as potential candidate areas: Pickett, Fentress, Morgan, and Scott. Those four counties were flagged because earthquakes are relatively scarce there and because of their proximity to existing nuclear infrastructure.

The specific communities within those counties were redacted from the public document, which means the people who live in them have been left to learn about their own situation through news coverage rather than through any direct notice from the state. That is the heart of the problem as I see it.

Current Status

It is important to be accurate about where this stands, because there is a great deal of speculation circulating and our communities deserve better than rumor.

No binding agreement has been signed, and no specific site has been selected. The memorandum of understanding between the state and the Department of Energy is preliminary, and any decision to actually host a campus would require a separate hosting agreement at a later date, along with regulatory review and, according to state officials, a public process. Governor Lee has said publicly that it is not yet clear whether the federal government is even asking Tennessee for a repository site, and he has said that the state should proceed only if it can protect the environment and the natural resources of the state while also delivering economic benefit, telling reporters that if and only if both can be accomplished should the state do it at all.

It is also worth noting that Governor Lee's term ends after this year, which means the next governor will ultimately be responsible for whatever agreement Tennessee does or does not enter into with the Department of Energy.

What Is at Stake for the 38th District

Pickett, Scott, and Fentress Counties are not empty ground on a geological survey. They are home to families who have worked this land for generations, to farms and small businesses, to churches and schools and communities that have held together through hard times, and to a way of life that people here have chosen deliberately and want to pass on.

They are also home to some of the most valuable natural and recreational assets in Tennessee. The Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area alone spans Scott, Fentress, Pickett, and Morgan Counties and draws hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, and our region depends on clean water, agriculture, tourism, and outdoor recreation for the strength of its rural economy. A permanent nuclear waste repository carries stewardship obligations that would outlast every person involved in making the decision, and those obligations would fall on the communities that host it rather than on the officials who approved it.

My Position

I strongly support Tennessee's continued leadership in nuclear energy and I recognize the real economic and national security opportunities associated with the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus. I am grateful for the Governor's leadership in positioning our state as a national leader in nuclear innovation, and I believe Tennessee has an important role to play in advancing this technology, strengthening our energy independence, and creating high quality jobs for Tennesseans.

But there is a clear distinction between leading the nation in nuclear innovation and locating a long-term nuclear waste repository in the rural communities of the Upper Cumberland, and Tennessee can and should lead without asking Pickett, Scott, Fentress, or Morgan County to bear that permanent responsibility.

My Request to the Governor

On August 24, I sent a formal letter to Governor Bill Lee stating my strong opposition to the consideration of any site in Pickett, Scott, or Fentress County for a long-term nuclear waste repository, and my office delivered that letter to the Governor's office.

In that letter I made three requests.

First, I respectfully requested that Pickett, Scott, and Fentress Counties be removed from consideration for the siting of a long-term nuclear waste repository.

Second, I asked that affected communities be provided full transparency about whether they are being considered, what specific locations are under evaluation, what materials would ultimately be stored, and what long-term responsibilities and risks would accompany such a facility.

Third, I asked that these communities be given a meaningful opportunity to participate before any additional sites are advanced for consideration, because decisions of this magnitude must not be made without the full knowledge and participation of the people who would live with the consequences.

Next Steps

I will continue monitoring this closely, I will continue communicating with the Governor's office and with my colleagues in the General Assembly, and I will keep the people of the 38th District informed as this process moves forward. I am not alone in raising these concerns, as other members representing affected counties have written the Governor as well, and legislators from both parties have called on the state to disclose the specific locations under evaluation.

Contact

If you have questions or want to share your thoughts on this issue, my office is always open. You can reach me at rep.kelly.keisling@capitol.tn.gov or at (615) 741-6852.