Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997

["Otto G. Raabe" <ograabe@ucdavis.edu>]

March 28, 1997

Dear Radsafers:

I received the following communication from Ralph Andersen via POWERNET. I
though it would be of general interests.

Yours sincerely,

Otto

****************************************************************************

The U.S. Senate has scheduled a vote on April 8 on Senate Bill 104 (S.
104), the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.  This first vote will be on
cloture -to limit a filibuster by the Senators from Nevada to block the
bill.  Subsequently, over the following days, the Senate will debate the
bill, consider amendments, and, ultimately, vote on the bill. 

It is important that the Senate vote on this bill succeed with the
highest number of affirmative votes.  This is because the White House
has threatened to veto the bill (for reasons that are not clear), even
though a large majority (much more than 50%) of the Congress are in
support of the bill.  A 2/3 majority of the Congress will be required to
override a presidential veto.

S. 104 will help end the repeated federal delays to safely manage the
used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants.  On behalf of
the federal government, the Department of Energy has a legal obligation
to begin taking possession of used nuclear fuel in 1998.  Despite this,
the Department of Energy presently has no plan to begin taking fuel
until the deep geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is licensed and in
operation -projected to be 2010 at the earliest.

The federal government must be held accountable for the $13 billion that
has been committed by our electricity customers to the Nuclear Waste
Fund for the sole purpose of properly managing used nuclear fuel.  Our
customers are continuing to pay more than $600 million each year into
the Fund through a tax on nuclear-generated electricity.  It is vital
that we act on behalf of our customers and in the interests of
preserving nuclear power as a strategically-important and
environmentally-protective source of electricity in our country's energy
mix.  

I urge you to write to your Senators and ask their support for S. 104.
Here are several reasons why passing S. 104 is good for our citizens and
good for our environment:

*	Nuclear energy is important to our nation's future and to protecting
our environment.  Nuclear power plants do not release carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases.  It is our second largest energy source,
producing more than 20% of our nation's electricity -this significantly
supports future economic growth and more jobs.  It also strengthens our
national energy independence.  It is vital that we not lose this option
due to the lack of action by the federal government.

*	Further delays and federal loopholes will cost consumers billions of
dollars.  Consumers have already committed $13 billion, and continue to
pay more than $600 million each year through a tax on nuclear-generated
electricity in return for the government to manage the safe and economic
disposal of used nuclear fuel.  The federal government is obligated to
honor this commitment to its citizens.

*	Because of a broken promise by the federal government, utilities are
running out of storage space.  The Department of Energy has abandoned
its legal obligation to begin taking possession of used nuclear fuel by
1998 -27 nuclear power plants will exhaust their in-plant fuel storage
space by that date.  Expanded on-site storage capacity for used nuclear
fuel will cost electricity consumers an additional $7 billion.  This
means consumers have to pay twice -once as required by the contract with
the federal government, and a second time in response to the federal
government reneging on the contract.  The Senate must act to help set
this right.

*	S. 104 will, among other things, mandate selection and development of
central interim storage of used fuel until the repository is ready.
Centralized storage of used nuclear fuel at a remote location is a more
efficient, economic, and environmentally-sound approach than storage at
many sites in 41 states -this is just common sense.  

*	There is no valid reason for further delay -scientific or otherwise.
The time to act is now.

As professionals in the field of radiation safety, I'm sure you have a
number of additional reasons why the federal government needs to honor
its commitment and do its job.  Please take the time to write a letter
(hand-written is fine) to your Senators -introduce yourself (you are one
of their constituents who is a professional in the field of radiation
safety), tell them why you think this is important, and ask them to
support S. 104.  Thank them for their consideration of your views.
Don't hesitate to encourage your co-workers, your friends, and your
neighbors to also write and weigh-in on this issue. 

Address your letter as follows:

The Honorable (Senator's name)
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

*****************************************************************************


		*****************************************************
		Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
		Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
		University of California, Davis, CA 95616
		Phone: 916-752-7754     FAX: 916-758-6140
		E-Mail: ograabe@ucdavis.edu
		******************************************************