On the first possible day, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) introduced
a new version of his "interim" storage bill for high-level
nuclear waste.

	Popularly known as the "Mobile Chernobyl Act," the bill would
establish a "temporary" storage site for high-level waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and begin at least 30 years worth of
transportation of nuclear waste through 43 states and the
District of Columbia.

	Craig's bill is S. 104. Senate Energy Committee staffers said
the bill is identical to that passed last year by the Senate,
but not taken up by the House under threat of veto by President
Clinton. Others, however, said there may be a few differences
between this year's model and last year's. NIRS had not yet seen
the bill at Monitor presstime.

	There seems little doubt that Energy Committee supporters of
the bill intend to move it quickly. The only hearing on the bill
is scheduled for February 5, and the Committee hopes to send it
to the Senate floor shortly afterwards. Michael Mariotte,
executive director of NIRS, was asked to testify at the February
5 hearing, along with DOE, a state regulator, and a
representative from the nuclear industry.

	At Monitor presstime, a companion House bill, had not yet been
introduced, though last year's sponsor, Rep. Fred Upton
(R-Mich.) was expected to do so soon.

	Meanwhile, the Department of Energy December 16 issued for
public comment a proposed rule which essentially would exempt
Yucca Mountain from the standards that would apply to any other
high-level waste dump. The proposed rule also would remove
potential waste transportation impacts as a consideration for
the site, among other effects.

	On Christmas Eve, Nevada Governor Bob Miller wrote then-Energy
Secretary Hazel O'Leary, "One can only assume that the
Department of Energy officials believe that Yucca Mountain would
be disqualified as a repository under the existing...guidelines.
This approach appears to continue a tradition of this program:
If Yucca Mountain can't meet the safety rules--then change the
rules.....The proposed approach, if adopted will result in legal
challenge by the State of Nevada and further erode the
credibility of an already controversial program."

	The comment period ends February 14, although NIRS has
requested an extension. NIRS also has requested public hearings
in addition to the one held in Las Vegas January 23. At that
hearing, NIRS presented comments signed by more than 35
organizations against the proposed rule.



DOE won't take waste by 1998

Even while DOE fantasizes that it can effectively establish a
dump relying on none of the environmental criteria required by
law and common sense, the agency acknowledged a rare recognition
of reality by telling nuclear utilities December 17 that it
cannot accept their high-level waste by January 31, 1998.

	DOE was responding to last year's federal court decision, that
the agency did not appeal, which said DOE must take the waste by
that date or face unspecified penalties. However, some legal
experts have said that the decision was based on a contract,
rather than law, and that such contracts typically can be broken
or extended when circumstances prevent their implementation.

	The nuclear industry reacted predictably, with the Nuclear
Energy Institute saying the DOE's announcement was unacceptable
and showed the need for the interim storage legislation.

	The industry also has loudly argued that it has collected some
$11 Billion from ratepayers for the Nuclear Waste Fund, and yet
has nothing to show for that money--thus, according to their
reasoning, the DOE owes them an "interim" storage site. But $11
Billion won't begin to cover the costs of building a "permanent"
facility, whether at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere, and
maintaining it for the next 250,000 years or so....



WHAT YOU CAN DO

Today, right now, write/call/fax your Senators and urge them 1)
not to co-sponsor S. 104; and 2) urge them to vote against the
bill if and when it reaches the Senate floor. The nuclear
industry, which feted Sen. Craig in a reception the day Congress
returned, clearly has forced this bill onto the "fast track."
Your actions are needed now.

	Second, write and submit your comments  on the DOE's proposed
rule. NIRS' comments will be available on NIRS' website
(www.nirs.org) or call Mary Olson, 202-328-0002 for more info.

They're BAAAAACK....



S. 104 IS THIS YEAR'S "INTERIM" WASTE STORAGE BILL; DOE TRIES TO
EXEMPT YUCCA MT FROM WASTE STANDARDS