More than 120 environmental groups, three-dozen federal legislators, governors, and numerous others have endorsed establishment of an independent Presidential Commission to completely review and re-evaluate our nation's radioactive waste policy. In late March 1995, Sen. Richard Bryan and Sen. Harry Reid, both of Nevada, introduced S. 544, which would establish such a commission.

Background

Few dispute that our nation's existing radioactive waste policies have failed. According to a 1987 federal law, a permanent high-level radioactive waste dump is supposed to be in place by 1998. Congress chose only one site--Yucca Mountain, Nevada--to undergo testing to determine its suitability for waste storage. According to nuclear industry promoters, the federal Department of Energy--in other words, the taxpayer--is supposed to take title to this lethal waste, and liability for all leaks or accidents. Yucca Mountain is now some 15 years and billions of dollars behind schedule, and new scientific information makes it increasingly unlikely that the site will be found suitable for long-term storage of the nation's most hazardous substance.

Technical problems plague a new generation of proposed "low-level" radioactive waste dumps, too. A dozen or so were supposed to be in place, according to federal law, by December 31, 1992. In fact, none were, and as of April 1995, none are. The problem of "disposing" of a billion pounds of "depleted uranium" from uranium enrichment activities remains vexing and unsolved, as does the problem of storage for extremely hazardous radioactive waste created over the past 50 years by our nation's nuclear weapons complex.

Nonetheless, while federal government production of new atomic waste has slowed (although clean-up of weapons plants may actually create waste), commercial nuclear reactors and associated facilities continue to generate hazardous material, with no permanent solution for its storage in sight.

The Nuclear Industry's "Solution"

The nuclear power industry regards atomic waste as a commodity--something which should be reprocessed or recycled whenever possible. Because this is neither economically nor socially feasible, and faced with the problems noted above, the industry has endorsed the concept of "interim" offsite storage, which essentially means "move it anywhere but get it off our property." Most "interim" storage schemes would place the high-level waste either in Nevada (apparently because of the dubious Yucca Mountain connection, since Nevada has no nuclear power plants) or on Native American lands. But "interim" storage has run into substantial criticism since it fails to cope with the central issue: what our nation should do with the waste on a more permanent basis, or whether we should generate radioactive materials in the absence of a permanent solution for their storage. In the meantime, radioactive waste for the most part is being stored on-site at nuclear reactors.

Although the nuclear power industry has tried to portray new "low-level" radioactive waste dumps as essential to ensure continued use of nuclear medicine, the vast majority of medical radioactive waste is both small in amount of radioactivity and is short-lived, making effective storage quite reasonable. Nuclear reactor waste, on the other hand, is both long-lived and can be lethally dangerous. In addition, unlike medical waste, nuclear reactor waste includes such hazardous elements as Plutonium-239, which has a hazardous life of 240,000 years, far beyond the 100-year control period proposed for "low-level" radioactive waste dumps. This raises substantial issues as to whether the current classification scheme for radioactive waste holds scientific credibility, or whether it is merely a convenience to the nuclear industry.

"Interim" storage of high-level waste, and establishment of potentially national or regional "low-level" nuclear waste treatment centers and dumps also raises the spectre of widespread transportation of deadly atomic garbage. In January 1995, the State of Nevada and 102 grassroots environmental groups released a study indicating likely transportation routes for high-level waste: these rail and highway routes would affect thousands of communities in 43 different states--all to move the waste to an uncertain future at a temporary dumpsite, with the distinct possibility that the waste may have to move again. "Interim" storage is not a solution for a sound radioactive waste management policy. It is simply a stop-gap measure aimed at removing the waste from where it now rests--with the nuclear utilities--in order to give utilities room to make still more nuclear waste--with no permanent solution in sight, and to transfer the liability for accidents from the utilities to taxpayers.

An Independent Commission

For these reasons--the failure of existing radioactive waste policies and the bankruptcy of current radioactive waste proposals--a groundswell of public opinion is developing in favor of a different approach. It is time to re-examine our nation's radioactive waste issues and to think about new ways to address this seemingly insoluble problem. One thing is clear: a sound scientific basis, greater technical justification and greater public acceptance are prerequisites for developing a meaningful radioactive waste storage policy. This cannot be achieved by stop-gap measures endorsed only by nuclear utilities. S. 544 would create an independent Presidential Commission to re-evaluate our nation's atomic waste policies and to make recommendations that would point the way toward a more sensible means of handling these unwanted byproducts of the nuclear age. The Commission would consist of recognized scientists; of representatives from state government agencies charged with addressing this problem; of members of affected and potentially-affected communities; of Native American tribes; and, in recognition of the essential role played by ordinary citizens, ordinary citizens. In short, the Commission would resemble our nation itself. It would grapple with this most difficult of issues, and attempt to reach a defensible consensus. During the two-year charter of the Commission, no federal licenses could be issued for radioactive waste storage, except for temporary on-site storage (most "low-level" radioactive waste dumps are licensed by the states). The concept of an independent Presidential Commission is gaining increasing momentum as the only sound way to address the fundamental flaws in our current radioactive waste policies. We have learned over the years that it is not possible to simply force radioactive waste dumps on people who don't want them, and that it is unsound to develop radioactive waste policy that is neither publicly-acceptable nor scientifically-defensible. An independent commission could go a long way toward restoring public confidence in our governmental institutions and in promulgating radioactive waste policies that make sense for our nation.

Prepared by Michael Mariotte, April 1995 For more information, contact the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 1424 16th Street NW, #601, Washington, DC 20036. 202-328-0002; fax: 202-462-2183; e-mail: nirsnet@igc.apc.org.