Nuke industry pushes for temporary nuclear site

BethAnn D'Agostino

Friday, Jan. 30, 1998 | 4:23 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- After 16 years, the deadline for the Department of Energy to find a permanent nuclear waste storage site will come and go Saturday night. But several U.S. senators and a pro-nuclear industry group tried to reinvigorate legislation Friday to temporarily move the waste near Yucca Mountain.

Sens. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Rod Grams, R-Minn., along with the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), blasted the department for failing to uphold several federal court decisions which obligated it to ship nuclear waste from power reactors around the country to a single specified site by Feb. 1, 1998.

Despite reports that the interim storage bill may be held up until next year, the senators contend that they will force a vote on the measure -- and force the federal government to take immediate responsibility for removing the nuclear waste. The interim storage bill has passed the House and Senate but is likely to be vetoed by President Clinton.

"DOE has the authority and the legal responsibility to remove this waste, but it prefers to play political games with the safety of America," Murkowski said, adding that he expects to have the two-thirds majority to override a veto.

The House passed the bill, 307-120, more than enough to override a veto. The Senate, however, came up two votes short of two-thirds, 65-35. If Murkowski can get Congress to move ahead on the bill, a vote to override Clinton's veto will likely come late in the summer or fall.

The Nevada congressional delegation expects to be able to garner enough votes to sustain the veto and keep the nuclear waste out of Nevada -- at least until the DOE can determine if Yucca Mountain is a safe permanent depository.

"We've just got to fight it 100 percent every step of the way," said Jack Finn, spokesman for Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev.

"Basically the whole issue comes down to public health and safety," said Jenny Backus, spokeswoman for Reid.

Thomas Schatz, president of the CCAGW, said that nearly $8 billion of the $14 billion collected from ratepayers since 1983 for the Nuclear Waste Fund has been used to mask the country's deficit. Further delays coupled with the lack of funds could lead to a potential federal liability of $56 billion, according to Schatz.

"When taxpayers hear the words 'trust fund' coming from Washington, they should grab their wallets," said Schatz during the press conference. "DOE has collected $600 million a year in surcharges since 1983. Yet it refuses to make good on its legal obligation to remove the used nuclear fuel."

The DOE claims it cannot fulfill the Feb. 1 deadline, as directed under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, because it won't be finished building a permanent underground site at Yucca Mountain until at least 2015.

Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nev., said that transporting the nuclear waste would be seven times more expensive than upgrading plants with new dry storage casks on site.

"It would cost $330 million to upgrade the plants with dry casks. It would cost $230 billion to transport the same waste to Nevada," said Gibbons. "If 3/8 the CCAGW 1/8 are adamantly against flagrant government waste, they should look at what they are proposing."

Both Finn and Backus stress the dangers of transporting nuclear waste across country, and say that until a permanent site is choosen, the waste is safer in storage casks near power reactor plants.

"Today was an artificial phony crisis created as a press event," said Backus about the press conference. "Waste is safe on site. Last year 5 shipments 3/8 of nuclear waste 1/8 were stopped because they were leaking. Are we really ready to start transporting this to a temporary spot and then have to move it again?"

-30-