S 104, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997: Concerns

Transportation is not the “solution” to nuclear waste problem . Centralized interim storage will trigger the largest nuclear waste shipping campaign in history. 43 states will be affected. DOE figures show 50 million Americans live within ½ mile of the likely transport routes. A low estimate projects more than 8,000 shipments would move through Iowa, of these only 65 will originate at the Iowa reactor. Moving nuclear waste to a temporary site which will use the same storage technology currently in use at reactors may result in having to move the waste again. We should only move nuclear waste to what we know will be a permanent location, and never in a hurry. S 104 imposes unrealistic schedules, with little time for preparation.

S 104 will effectively kill the permanent repository program . Moving nuclear waste to the vicinity of Yucca Mountain before the study of that site has determined whether it is scientifically suited for an environmentally sound permanent repository might jeopardize scientific credibility and will erode any remaining public credibility in that project. S 104 also redirects annual appropriations to the temporary site and transport thus putting the repository on hold, and further widening the funding gap which already exists in the nuclear waste program, calling into question whether the repository would ever be built.

A nuclear utility bail-out will leave taxpayers holding the bag . Current federal law establishes that the federal government will take charge of the high-level nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power, but only when there is a permanent facility in place to take the waste. S 104 would transfer the waste to the taxpayer at the utility gate on the way to what is effectively a parking lot, thus relieving the utilities of any further role in attaining a permanent program.

All of the DOE contract is valid . The DC Circuit Appeals court has upheld the fact that contracts between the DOE and the nuclear utilities are binding. However, like any other Service contract these contracts have a “delay clause” – which covers both avoidable and unavoidable delay. The court is not the correct body, nor do they have the authority to set national nuclear waste policy.

Preemption of state and local authority is an action that should never be taken lightly by Congress. S 104 contains some of the most sweeping preemption language ever proposed, including the override of virtually every federal statute. The Secretary of Energy would be empowered to decide if any law (local, state, federal) were inconsistent or duplicative of the Atomic Energy Act or the new Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and if so, disregard it. S 104 further explicitly limits the application of NEPA and would render EPA regulation of this most deadly waste moot. Nuclear waste is the reason to have environmental protection, not the occasion to waive it.