Hazardous Waste: Legislators address handling, shipping of nuclear waste

A decade after the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, nuclear waste does not frequently make the headlines, but handling of these and other hazardous materials is an issue that has grabbed the attention of numerous federal and state legislators.

U.S. Senate Bill 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, sponsored by Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is the latest response.

The bill, which passed on April 15, is dubbed the “Mobile Chernobyl” bill by detractors. It calls for storing high-level radioactive materials at a remote location in the Nevada desert instead of letting them continue to pile up at 80 locations in 41 states.

Plans call for a permanent waste storage area at Yucca Mountain in Nevada to start receiving spent fuel rods and other nuclear wastes by 2023. Meanwhile, Murkowski proposes construction of an interim storage facility on the Nevada test site where nuclear bombs were detonated during the early years of the Cold War. More than $12 billion has already been collected from ratepayers for centralized storage.

By 1998, 23 nuclear reactors in 14 states will be full, and by 2010, 65 will be full, according to Murkowski. Many will not be able to build on-site storage and will have to shut down, meaning a loss of 5 percent of the nation’s electricity generating capacity, says Murkowski.

Partly in response to the pending federal legislation, which if enacted would lead to an increase in hazardous waste shipments, a Georgia legislator has introduced HB 646 to tighten oversight and inspection procedures for vehicles carrying nuclear waste and increase permit fees.

Sponsored by Rep. June Hegstrom (D-Scottdale), the bill was under study by a subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee at the close of the Georgia General Assembly’s 1997 session in March. It is expected to be taken up again in January 1998.

Among other things, Hegstrom’s bill calls for the Georgia Public Service Commission to institute a comprehensive permitting procedure for nuclear waste transport, including requirements for driver certification and training, emergency response planning and documentation of proposed routes and emergency resources.

Provisions are also included for inspection of shipments and vehicles at the point of entry into the state and increased bonding or indemnity insurance for haulers.

“It’s an issue that is coming into its own,” says Hegstrom. But, she adds, there is more work to do in educating fellow legislators and their constituents about the issue.

Murkowski’s congressional bill is partly the result of a federal court ruling mandating that the United States take control of high-level radioactive materials from electricity production and defense uses beginning in 1998.

Additionally, a Department of Energy policy that has been in place for over a year calls for the United States to take back the uranium it exports to other countries after the uranium is used in nuclear power plants.

Of particular concern to Hegstrom is the port of Charleston, S.C.’s destination as a key East Coast reception point.

Much of the waste would be shipped over Georgia roads because of the state’s proximity to Charleston, its strategically important interstate highway system and its Savannah River facility, already a nuclear waste destination.

Hegstrom says use of a centralized storage facility in Nevada would mean more than 2,600 highly radioactive shipments on Georgia’s railroads and highways over the next 20 years.

She says critics of her bill believe it is not needed because there have been very few nuclear transport accidents so far. But she notes that shipments thus far have been limited in number compared to what is to come. “It’s not a matter of never having an accident. It’s just when,” Hegstrom says.