Nuclear waste storage bill sits

The Senate fails to override a presidential veto of a bill that would create a U.S. repository in the Nevada desert.

By Times staff, wires

© St. Petersburg Times, published May 3, 2000

WASHINGTON -- Since 1982, Americans have paid nearly $15-billion in higher electrical bills to finance a national repository in Nevada for storing nuclear waste from power-plant reactors.

But unless a political stalemate is broken, many consumers may find they are paying a second time, this time for the cost of keeping the waste stored at sites around the country, like Citrus County's Crystal River nuclear plant, rather than consolidating it in a national storage area.

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Clinton's veto of a bill clearing the way for building such a national repository on Yucca Mountain in Nevada by 2007. The 65-34 vote fell two votes short of the required two-thirds majority.

Sen. William Roth, R-Del., a supporter of an override, was absent, meaning that the supporters of moving ahead with the national repository were technically only one vote short. Florida Sens. Bob Graham and Connie Mack both voted for the override.

Another attempt this year to move the legislation is unlikely.

Opponents said a single repository would create a potential environmental disaster and claimed that transporting nuclear waste across the country posed the risk of a nuclear accident on highways and railroads.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., called cross-country shipments of nuclear waste "mobile Chernobyls."

And yet the cost of not moving the waste will be considerable.

Florida has five commercial nuclear power plants. Miami's Florida Power & Light is the first electric utility to face the issue of what to do when it runs out of space for spent fuel at one of its St. Lucie nuclear plants near Fort Pierce. Like all nuclear plants, used fuel is stored under water at the facility. The pool at St. Lucie, however, will be full by 2005.

FP&L is exploring the idea of storing nuclear waste outdoors in concrete casks. In other states, about 100 such casks are stacking up at nuclear plants -- but not without controversy. Watchdog groups say the casks are not safe enough and represent a poor interim solution.

The Crystal River nuclear plant has just over a decade of underwater space left before it, too, must find another way to store waste.

That decision on storage will be made by Carolina Power & Light, based in Raleigh, N.C. This fall, CP&L will complete its takeover of Florida Progress and its Florida Power electric utility, which owns the Crystal River plant.

CP&L is a modest user of dry cask storage at its Robinson plant in South Carolina. But, unlike most nuclear power plant operators, CP&L also has another alternative. CP&L once planned to build four nuclear plants south of Raleigh. After building four storage pools, CP&L chose to build only one nuclear plant. That gave it plenty of extra storage room.

Now CP&L ships spent nuclear fuel by rail to the facility to make use of the extra space. CP&L had asked to double the amount of spent fuel stored in the pool. If approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the plant could become the nation's largest storage site for high-level nuclear waste.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who cast a surprise vote in favor of the override, said he decided to support it after receiving a commitment from CP&L to limit use of the storage pools.

"That meant less nuclear waste stored in North Carolina and less waste shipped in the state," he said. Since the legislation did not become law, Edwards said he did not know if the company would limit in-state storage.

Since Congress in 1982 approved a bill to set up a national repository, utilities have paid nearly $15-billion into a Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the project. They passed on those costs to customers. This money cannot be touched unless Congress does so by legislation.

But the likelihood of a double whammy could await customers around the country. The extra costs associated with utilities storing the waste themselves will more than likely be passed onto customers.

What's more, the Yucca Mountain repository was supposed to be completed by January 1998. When that did not happen, several utilities sued the Department of Energy and won a $9-billion settlement. The vetoed legislation would have enabled the Energy Department to settle the claims.

The issue of environmental impact dominated the debate, with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., arguing that nuclear material could leak into an aquifer feeding one of California's most popular tourist sites, Death Valley National Park. The Nevada site is only 17 miles from the California line, she said.

Sen. Richard Bryan, D-Nev., said Yucca Mountain was targeted for the repository not from a scientific standpoint, but because of political decisions made during the Reagan administration.

Clinton issued his veto in part because, he said, it would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from developing radiation standards for the site before June 2001.

Bryan said the delay was put into the bill by Republicans in hopes that George W. Bush by then would be in the White House and allow a less stringent radiation standard than the one being considered by the EPA.

The Energy Department has said that it plans to decide next year whether or not to go ahead with the project, with hopes of completing a national nuclear-waste repository by 2010.

© St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.