WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb.
25, 1999— The Clinton
Administration's proposal to assume ownership of used nuclear
fuel and continue storing it at commercial and defense sites
across the country would undermine the long-term national
disposal program.
Secretary of
Energy Bill Richardson told a Senate committee today that the
agency is willing to take legal responsibility for managing
used nuclear fuel at current sites. Under a 1982 law and
contracts with electric utilities, the Energy Department has a
legal obligation to move used nuclear fuel from nuclear power
plant sites, beginning Jan. 31, 1998.
"Instead of
maintaining its commitment to the national policy of building
one federal disposal facility, DOE is proposing building
federal storage sites at 72 sites around the country," said
Joe F. Colvin, president and chief executive officer at the
Nuclear Energy Institute.
"This proposal
ultimately will undermine the nation's program—based on
scientific consensus—4to manage used nuclear fuel from
commercial and U.S. defense nuclear programs at a single
underground repository," Colvin added. "The end game of this
proposal is that there will be no permanent facility for
disposal of this fuel, and $15 billion committed from
consumers since 1983 to pay for a disposal program will be
siphoned away to pay for this short-term political fix."
Richardson's
proposal met resistance in Congress, which in 1997 passed
legislation instructing the Energy Department to build one
temporary storage facility to consolidate fuel until a
permanent disposal facility is built and licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That legislation was not
enacted, however. Similar legislation providing authorization
for DOE to build the central storage facility has been
introduced in the House of Representatives and has the support
of more than 100 cosponsors. A companion bill is expected to
be introduced in the Senate.
"Consolidating
used nuclear fuel at one location is a sensible approach that
will meet the federal government's legal obligation," Colvin
said. "By passing legislation, Congress can ensure that
repository program continues and that federal management of
fuel until that time is done more efficiently at one
location—not at federal sites scattered across the United
States."
Although
Richardson acknowledged "the costs and physical limitations of
continued storage of spent fuel" at nuclear power plants, he
offered the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee no
definitive plan on how the Energy Department would meets its
obligation to move fuel from plant sites, now more than one
year past due without any fuel receipt by the federal
government.
Instead,
Richardson said "I hope to avoid an unnecessary legislative
showdown this year." The administration has threatened to veto
legislation in each of the past three sessions of Congress
that would have provided the Department of Energy the policy
guidance to begin moving fuel to one facility rather than
developing storage sites at 72 locations. Some states, lacking
confidence that the federal government will move fuel from
plant sites, have limited expansion of storage at nuclear
power plants, and could be at odds with Richardson's proposal.
"The White House
is offering to take title to fuel they already own, using
billions of dollars from electricity consumers in a manner
that could jeopardize the long term goal of permanent fuel
disposal," Colvin said. "Consolidating this fuel at one
location, after the Energy Department determines the disposal
site suitable, clearly makes better policy sense than creating
more than 70 new federal sites."
