[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 100 (Monday, June 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S8628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


    TEMPORARY STORAGE OF CIVILIAN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AT THE HANFORD 
                    RESERVATION IN WASHINGTON STATE

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to discuss a serious and 
important issue facing the Nation: Our growing supply of civilian spent 
nuclear fuel that has no home. My friend from Alaska, Senator 
Murkowski, submitted a statement for the record before the Senate 
adjourned for the Memorial Day recess. In it, he discussed a number of 
policy options to be employed for interim storage. Hanford, WA, and 
Savannah River, SC were two sites he mentioned as possible interim 
storage facilities for civilian spent nuclear fuel.
  Located in the southeastern part of Washington State, the Hanford 
Reservation is home to over 80 percent of the Nation's spent plutonium 
fuel--2,132 metric tons by Senator Murkowski's count. The most potent 
of that waste sits hundreds of yards from the Columbia River in 50-
year-old concrete pools. These pools are not sophisticated and 
certainly not designed to store some of the deadliest materials 
produced by man.
  Hanford faces a particularly difficult situation. This year the site 
has incurred serious criticism for the waste and inefficiencies that 
have become associated with Hanford cleanup. Much of this criticism is 
well deserved. Some, however, is off-base and ignorant of the 
monumental task at hand. Hanford has a mission--it is to follow through 
on the noble and worthy effort this Government undertook to win World 
War II. The site must be cleaned--that is the task at hand.
  Adding more waste to Hanford, as I have said before, makes little 
sense. As the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski has 
joined the ranking member, Senator Johnston in introducing a bill that, 
I fear, would impede ongoing cleanup efforts at the site. So it is 
puzzling, when my friend suggests Hanford can barely tie its own shoes, 
but in the next breath, he says the site should be burdened with 
massive amounts of additional waste. There is a disconnect. I believe 
Hanford's mission is to focus on cleanup. So let me be clear: Shipping 
spent civilian nuclear fuel to Hanford sets a dangerous, and perhaps 
irrevocable, precedent. And unfortunately, despite Senator Murkowski's 
assurances to the contrary, when dealing with waste that has a half-
life of thousands of years, ``interim'' takes on an entirely new 
meaning.
  Senator Murkowski, fortunately, understands there is considerable 
room for debate on this issue. He is absolutely right to point out the 
problems the country faces in light of the impending spent fuel storage 
crisis. I also sympathize with the Senator from Alaska's frustration at 
both DOE and the President's lack of progress at Yucca Mountain. As he 
correctly notes, over $4.2 billion has been spent on the Yucca Mountain 
project to date--with nothing to show for the effort.
  Rather than abandon this program altogether--which the House 
essentially does in its budget resolution this year--does it not make 
more sense to push through and finish a project that has absorbed 
significant time and money? Quite clearly, the United States must build 
a long-term storage facility for its high-level nuclear waste. Yucca 
Mountain, by most indications, is the logical choice.
  As the Senator from Alaska emphasized in his statement, both an 
interim storage site and transportation system at Yucca Mountain must 
be developed. If it is the intention of the Federal Government to send 
waste to Yucca Mountain eventually, why not send the spent fuel there 
temporarily, until the permanent depository is ready? It is remote, 
arid, and has had a mission of testing nuclear devices for over 40 
years. And perhaps most important, by placing a temporary facility at 
Yucca Mountain, transporting this deadly material across the Nation is 
limited to one voyage.
  My intent today is not to solve the interim storage problems that the 
Nation faces with its growing stockpile of spent civilian nuclear fuel. 
I do, however, want to point out an inconsistency this Congress is 
contemplating: Cleaning Hanford while simultaneously adding more waste 
begs common sense. And I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind in 
their deliberations.


                          ____________________