******* CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT ******* Lisa Marina Brooks CMEP: NUCLEAR WASTE UPDATE SENATE FLOOR ACTION UNDERWAY; ANALYSIS SHOWS AT-REACTOR STORAGE MUCH CHEAPER THAN CENTRALIZED STORAGE S.104, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, is currently being debated before the full Senate. A vote on final passage is expected late Monday or early Tuesday (although such expectations are always subject to change in the Senate). The vote will probably be very close to the key level of 1/3 no votes necessary to sustain the veto promised by the Clinton Administration. PLEASE CALL, FAX OR EMAIL YOUR SENATORS URGING THEM TO OPPOSE THE S.104 The major development during Senate floor action so far has been Sen. Murkowski's introduction of a substitute bill, a new version of S.104. The revised version mitigates some of the worst excesses in his previous legislation without curing its fundamental flaws. The bill would still: --Mandate siting of an "interim" storage facility, necessitating the transport of highly irradiated nuclear fuel through 43 states. This dump could become the waste's permanent resting place, because it would proceed even if Yucca Mountain were found to be unsuitable as a repository; --Block the Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing process of setting radiation standards for a permanent repository, and prevent the Safe Drinking Water Act from applying to the repository; and --override state, local and tribal laws that interfere with the nuclear waste shipping and dumping program mandated by the bill. Also, we've done some calculations of the costs of at-reactor dry cask storage vs. centralized storage a la S.104, and the press release and summary follow. ______________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:Auke Piersma Thursday, April 10, 1997 202-546-4996 x-318 NEW ANALYSIS SHOWS STORING NUCLEAR WASTE ON-SITE SEVEN TIMES CHEAPER THAN STORING AT A CENTRAL LOCATION Defeat of Nuclear Waste Legislation Urged As the Senate prepares to vote on legislation to mandate construction of a new nuclear waste dump, an analysis by Public Citizen shows that storing the waste at the reactors that generate it is seven times cheaper than moving it to a central location in Nevada, as proposed by Sen. Murkowski's S.104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. "This misguided legislation's rush to move highly irradiated nuclear fuel from the reactors that generated it would be more expensive and more dangerous than keeping the waste on site until its ultimate disposition is determined," said Auke Piersma, a researcher at Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project who wrote "The Real Costs of On-Site Storage of Highly Irradiated Nuclear Fuel." "Undue haste and nuclear waste are a bad combination." "In its grab for a government bailout, the atomic lobby has tried to create a phony crisis," Piersma continued. "The Nuclear Energy Institute claims the federal government would be liable for the absurd sum of $56 billion for failing to take the industry's waste by 1998. However, the total cost of additional storage necessary to keep that waste on site through 2010 is only $224-$330 million. That compares to a cost of $2.3 billion just through 2002 to open the central waste dump mandated by S.104, according to the Congressional Budget Office." Piersma noted that the costs could vary within those ranges depending on the type of storage cask used, and added that actual costs will run even lower than his projections because his methodology errs on the side of predicting more waste. Increased competition in electricity markets will almost certainly cause many atomic reactors to close before their licenses expire, which means they will generate less waste than expected. "Sen. Murkowski's bill flies in the face of sound fiscal and environmental policy," said Bill Magavern, director of Critical Mass. "The Senate should reject legislation that increases the costs of nuclear waste storage in response to the bogus claims of nuclear lobbyists." Murkowski's bill would also transfer liability for radioactive waste from the nuclear utilities that created it to the U.S. taxpayers. Furthermore, the bill would send the highly toxic material onto the highways and railroads of 43 states, endangering communities along the routes. Public Citizen is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest research and advocacy organization with over 130,000 members nationwide. Critical Mass is its energy policy group. "The Real Costs of On-Site Storage of Highly Irradiated Nuclear Fuel" has projections for storage costs for all operating reactors and can be obtained from Auke Piersma at 202-546-4996 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Summary of Findings The real cost of storing highly irradiated nuclear fuel in dry casks at reactors is $224 - 330 million through 2010, or $388 - 571 million through 2015, even using methodology likely to overstate costs. The nuclear lobby's claim that the federal government could be liable for $56 billion for failure to accept utility waste by 1998 is ludicrous, since DOE's inability to take the waste would result in only $224 - $330 million in increased storage costs to utilities through 2010. CBO estimates the centralized interim storage requirements of S. 104 will cost $2.3 billion from 1997 to 2002. The cost of at-reactor storage is far lower than the cost of the centralized interim storage proposed by S. 104. S. 104 would require DOE, in 5 years, to spend 7 times the maximum amount of money it would cost for 12 years of dry cask storage at reactors. The DOE and this analysis both conclude that only 9 reactors will run out of pool storage by 2000, and all 9 are planning or have dry cask storage and will continue to operate. This analysis also concludes that by 1998 only 3 reactors will run out of storage space, and all 3 are planning or have dry cask storage and will continue to operate. DOE's failure to accept this high level nuclear waste by 1998 is clearly not jeopardizing the continued operation of nuclear reactors. Congress should refuse to pass legislation that increases the costs of nuclear waste storage in response to a phony "crisis." For more information contact: Auke Piersma at apiersma@citizen.org or at 202-546-4996. ___________________________________________________________________________ The Critical Mass Energy Project world wide web site is located at: http://www.citizen.org/CMEP The Critical Mass email address is cmep@essential.org