OCR Text |
Show Western Resources WC3AP-UP Nuclear waste By llelone C. Moiilx-eg hiiigUm Nuclear waste is going a lot of attention in Congress tliis Senate Energy Committee has d the Senate leadership its top lies for Senate floor net ion now e unfinished 1980 Department of y tDOE) authorization (S B88) is nuclear waste policy bill tS DOE authorization didn't make it he Senate in the pre-Christmas itive log jam. The nuclear Waste bill was approved by the Senate y Committee on Dec. 10 by a vote , and the report was filed on Jan. Senate Environment and Public ; Committee is seeking re-re- of the Energy Committee's ir waste policy bill. Meanwhile, nan Gary Hart, D-Colo., of En-nent'S En-nent'S Nuclear Regulation Sub-ittee Sub-ittee is rushing to complete hear-n hear-n his own nuclear waste bill, as iment to S. 1521, a nuclear w aste cement bill by Sen. Jennings Ran- D-W.Va. Hart has scheduled a t of hearings on his bill for Jan. 23 an. 24. with mark-up to follow ly thereafter. Senate Governmental Affairs littee is likewise continuing hear-n hear-n S. 742 by Sens. Charles H. Per-111., Per-111., and John Glenn, D-Ohio, to ish three new organizations to policy on nuclear waste manage-New manage-New hearing dates have not yet scheduled. ppears likely all three bills, from different committees will soon to the Senate floor for considera-rhere considera-rhere are major differences in the bills. "Therefore, if some accom-tion accom-tion is not reached before te) floor action, a major battle e expected," a nuclear waste gment panel reported to the ican Nuclear Energy Council on 18. irman Morris K. Udall, D-Ariz., House Interior Committee plans oduce an omnibus nuclear energy ;ry soon, perhaps within the next It will have several major provi-concerning provi-concerning nuclear waste gement, according to the Com-s Com-s staff. The Udall bill is expected ieiegislative vehicle in the House clear-waste management. It will &, Vowever, and it w ill be refer- the House Commerce Committee unsideration after the House In- Committee acts on it, so that ; floor action cannot be expected mtil very late in the session. That nes the bill will move thru the In- panel. It may not, industry s told Western Resources Wrap-up. V), because it will be both com-rnsive com-rnsive and controversial. ; Udall bill will provide for ally-funded state nuclear boards ; up of representatives of elected officials and Indian tribes, state ators, and members of the public, will be voting members, and sentatives of affected state agen-who agen-who will be non-voting members of ate boards. boards will be authorized to in-ne in-ne in regulatory and liceasing proves pro-ves of the Department of Energy uclear Regulatory Commission '); they will also be consulted and the right to concurrence on the ruction and operation of a nuclear t facility within their state. If a .board votes against construction ration of a nuclear waste facility ; an approval permit by the NRC, ;J be up to Congress to decide iter to go ahead. ' Udall bill will be geared to final al of nuclear waste. It does pro-for pro-for temporary storage of from 0 metric tons of spent fuel from ar reactors on a short-term iency basis until a permanent evel waste repository can be 1 State approval will not be re-1 re-1 for the short-term federal ;e facility. illy, the Udall bill will lay out a Jle to be met by DOE on getting h a solution to the nuclear waste e problem. That schedule has not inally worked out at this writing, rwas told on Jan. 15. "! PROBLEM IS GROWING jjjo there has been a lot of Congres- 8j rhetoric about nuclear waste, ,ess has never passed legislation Jing for permanent storage and al of radioactive waste, which t piling up in this country since j's- Such waste has been or is beared be-ared at about 18 sites in remote '..in this country. It's a tough but g problem. Altho it has been said 1 U of the nuclear waste in this y could be stacked into one foot-irftadium, foot-irftadium, it is highly toxic, so it A potential health hazard to living Id res and the ecosystem for hun-'of hun-'of years, as a minimum. So no I yants a waste storage or disposal fi permanently within its borders, K (io nuclear waste continues to ac-yile, ac-yile, mainly from the weapons e jm and as spent fuel from civilian r reactors now operating. It had been government policy until April 1977 to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear power plants to extend the supply sup-ply of nuclear energy. Then President Carter announced an indefinite deferment defer-ment in the commercial re processing of spent fuel to try to limit the number of nations with nuclear capabilities. This brought on a interim spent fuel storage problem because utilities with nuclear plants which had planned to reprocess their spent fuel were suddenly sudden-ly faced with storing it at their plants. Now much spent fuel would have to be stored away from reactors is in sharp dispute. In a memo which Udall sent to members of the House Interior Committee's Energy and Environment Subcommittee (which Udall also chairs) on Oct. 9, he stated, "The Department of Energy has steadily lowered its projections of spent fuel storage requirements" from 1,700 metric tons by 1983 in a 1977 estimate to 500 metric tons by 1983 in an estimate dated Sept. 18, 1979. Udall noted that the General Accounting Accoun-ting Office had asserted in a June 1979 report the "the need for federal interim storage facilities (for spent fuel) has not been established" He said the House Interior Committee had acknowledge "since 1977 that storage space for spent fuel at nuclear reactor sites is growing scarce." Udall and Reps. Jonathan B. Bingham, D-N.Y., and John F. Seiberling, D-Ohio, among others on the panel are described by a Committee staff member as "bullish" on solving the nuclear waste management manage-ment problem, even tho they are cool to continued development of nuclear power in civilian power plants. All three are influential senior Democrats on the House Interior Committee. UIT ( OYi RONKKSV The latest battle over nuclear waste occurred last year in the conference committee on the DOE authorization (S673) bill for the nuclear weapons programs. pro-grams. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was the bone of contention. It was originally authorized in 1976 as a research, development and demonstration demonstra-tion project for the storage of defense waste in the Delaware Basin near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico. Subsequently, the Administration promised to change WIPP "first to include in-clude the storage of 1,000 spent fuel assemblies from commercial reactors, and later to u commercial-type intermediate in-termediate scale facility where defense nuclear waste would be stored," according accor-ding to the conference report on the bill (House Report 9(1 -702). The state of New Mexico was upset about the change in plans and sought a veto over the facility. facili-ty. The conferees stresed that WIPP would continue to be solely an R&D facility to demonstrate the safe disposal of radio active wastes from the nations'nuclear weapons program. But WIPP would not be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state of New Mexico would not have a veto over its construction and operation, opera-tion, the conferees said. Rather, (Instate (In-state would have a consultative and cooperative role only under carefully outlined conditions designed to keep the project moving ahead. If the conferees were to allow New Mexico a veto power, the conferees said they "foresaw each state exercising a veto leaving no site available for defense waste management purposes." As the bill had passed the Senate, it gave the state the role of "consultation and concurrence." con-currence." The conferees said they relied on an opinion by the Comptroller General of Sept. 7 stating that a state veto could result in making it impossible impossi-ble for the DOE to establish waste storage facilities and "constitute an unlawful delegation of federal power." When President Carter signed the WIPP funding bill into law, he announced announc-ed that he would not allow the $22 million in the bill to be u-sed for additional addi-tional work on WIPP, on which an estimated $87 million has already boon spent. Congress cleared the bill on Dec. 19 for his signature. |