Commentary: Is it time to rethink Idaho’s involvement with DOE’s Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus?

Gov. Brad Little proudly announced in July that the Idaho National Laboratory had been selected by the Trump administration as one of five finalists for designation as a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus. 

We were told that if the state was picked as one of the three NLICs, there would be massive financial investment and jobs galore at INL. The only catch was that INL had to take and store one third of the country’s nuclear waste. Little promised that storage at INL would not be permanent. 

There was a short timeline to compete with the other finalists because a binding host agreement with the feds needed to be finalized by Sept. 30. That deadline has come and gone, but we’ve heard practically nothing about the matter since then.

We do know that the Trump administration filed a troubling lawsuit against Idaho on Sept. 11, claiming INL’s water right should not suffer if there was a water shortage in the vicinity. The shortage would be visited upon farmers, fish producers and other water right holders.

Idahoans must – once again – fight off a serious federal water threat

Word about the lawsuit was for some reason kept under wraps by the governor, attorney general and other state elected officials. The reason for the secrecy is mysterious and concerning. The federal lawsuit is without legal merit, although the lawsuit may have been an indication that Idaho is under serious consideration for NLIC designation.

But then an interesting story popped up from Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Nuclear News reported that Tim Walsh, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, was in Oak Ridge on Oct. 27 to announce a $15 billion nuclear project there, which happens to be another NLIC finalist. 

The project will provide 10,000 construction jobs and many permanent jobs. Participating companies and projects were disclosed. One might wonder whether this announcement means that Oak Ridge has been selected as an NLIC. If not, how does this comprehensive “nuclear energy hub” differ from an NLIC?

Mr. Walsh said that the only thing lacking at Oak Ridge for NLIC designation was where the nuclear waste would be permanently stored. “The last component that we need to solve is really a final repository for the spent nuclear fuel,” he said. 

So, the DOE contemplates that a NLIC designee will need to permanently store its one-third share of the country’s nuclear waste or find another jurisdiction that will. That should be a definite no-go for the state of Idaho. Most of us don’t want a permanent nuclear waste storage site anywhere in the state.

I do not believe we have been informed about the companies and projects that have been lined up for the INL. Idahoans should be told what is being contemplated for INL so that we are not being asked to buy into a pig in a poke. It would be of great interest to see what the needs might be for water and electric power for the various projects because neither are in plentiful supply in the vicinity.

In his initial proposal to the DOE, the governor says on page 14: “Idaho is prepared to identify sources of readily accessible on-site water supplies capable of meeting industrial-scale needs, including cooling systems for reactors and reprocessing facilities.” 

However, it is not clear where those sources are in that water-short area. The wording – “industrial-scale needs” – implies a lot of water. The governor has yet to reveal those “readily accessible” water supplies, perhaps because they do not exist.

Similarly, we don’t know where the electricity will come from for any new projects. It is contemplated that data centers will be part of the NLIC. Since the centers would be on federal land, they would not be subject to state laws. Any data centers should be required by any binding agreement with DOE to furnish their own needs for water and power in an environmentally responsible manner. 

Above all else, state officials should remove the shroud from this entire project. The public has a right to know what our government is proposing as inducements to get the NLIC designation. 

How will the project impact Idahoans and exactly what benefits will it produce? What will be the monetary benefits to, or burdens upon, the state? 

The failure of our officials to reveal the federal attack on Idaho’s control of water resources on federal land is not encouraging. We have a right to be informed about such troubling developments.

There should be public hearings and opportunities for input by Idahoans before any binding plan is locked in by the negotiators. The planning and implementation should be conducted transparently, instead of behind closed doors. 

This is a representative democracy. Our elected leaders should respect that and act accordingly. The people deserve nothing less.