REGULATORY FOCUS
Nuclear waste disposal
Michael R. Deland
During the past decade, Congress enacted a full range of environmental statutes which form, with one glaring omission, the framework for a comprehensive federal environmental program. The missing piece—a major one—is legislation to regulate the disposal of nuclear waste. Civilian and military facilities have been generating nuclear waste in the U.S. for nearly 40 years, yet the country still does not have a plan for the ultimate disposal of these wastes. For several years all the key parties, including the administration, the congressional leadership, state governments, the nuclear industry, and environmental groups, have recognized the need to develop a safe method for permanent waste disposal. However, while this compelling need has been considered by seven different congressional committees, thus far it has escaped translation into concrete statutory language. Last spring, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill, but the House was unable to reconcile three separate versions and adjourned for the election recess without agreeing on a single bill. At that time, House Speaker O'Neill pledged that nuclear waste legislation would be given top priority during the lame-duck session commencing on Nov. 29, 1982. 0013-936X/82/0916-0653A$01.25/0
Administration initiatives The Reagan administration, primarily through the Department of Energy, has sought to facilitate passage of the legislation by emphasizing what it believes to be the two critical issues from among the many under discussion and by evidencing a willingness to compromise on most of the others. The main precepts of the administration's program are first to build a harmonious state-federal partnership oriented toward the siting and construction of permanent waste repositories. Second, the administration is adamant that the enormous costs of waste disposal be borne not by the general tax revenues but rather that they be "off budget," financed by a "revolving fund." Such a fund would be built by assessing waste disposal fees on utilities. Other issues The National Governors' Association has long supported legislation and understandably feels that the states should participate as active partners in the siting and construction process. The question of a "state veto" is therefore important. The association argues that if a state objects to a project it should be stopped unless the objection is overridden by a vote in both Houses of Congress. The states feel this to be a reasonable "check and balance," particularly given the numerous procedural restraints including one that requires Congress to act within 60 days. The nuclear industry, by contrast, believes that national interests should override state concerns, and therefore if a state objects to a project it should nonetheless be continued until such time as the House affirmatively sustains the state objection. The leading environmental groups
© 1982 American Chemical Society
generally strongly support legislation to regulate disposal of high-level nuclear waste on the grounds that a consistent national policy is long overdue. The Environmental Policy Center concurs with the administration that the legislation has "picked up enormous baggage" along the way and cites "away-from-reactor" (AFR) storage as one example. The groups feel that the need for AFR storage has been exaggerated and that provisions for increased on-site wet storage could be made. In addition, they feel that new technologies such as "dry cask" storage open still more on-site possibilities. The environmentalists further assert that although AFR has been carefully characterized as "last resort, limited storage" once such facilities become operational tremendous pressure would develop to further delay the approval of permanent repositories. The concept of "monitored retrievable storage" (MRS), which proponents argue would be free of the technical uncertainty associated with geological structures and which would provide an "insurance policy" for the nation, sparks similar objections from environmentalists. The various groups have conflicting views on other issues, such as when in the process the National Environmental Policy Act and related environmental reviews should be triggered. However, more importantly, the participants share a deep-seated realization that the U.S. can no longer produce nuclear waste without devising a program for its permanent disposal. Given the widespread bipartisan support, the onus is now on the House to follow the Senate's lead and to agree on long-awaited legislation. Deland writes this column monthly and is counsel to ERT, Concord, Mass. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 12, 1982
653A
