[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7844-S7848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask
unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 10:10 a.m. this
morning and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes; the other side has 8\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to address the broad policy
implications of S. 1936. I want to emphasis that my comments apply
directly to the bill before us, not 1271. There has been some
suggestion that 1936 represents improvement over 1271, its predecessor.
It is my view that there are some changes but the changes make no
policy difference at all.
First, I want to make the point again with respect to the necessity
for interim storage. My colleague has pointed it out. I want my
colleagues who are watching the debate in the office to look at this
report entitled ``Disposal and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Finding
the Right Balance, a Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy.''
This is March of this year, 1996. ``The Board sees no compelling
technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage
facility for the next few years.''
Mr. President, what is occurring is a familiar pattern. This
technical review board was created by Congress in 1987 after the
original 1982 act. So, if you do not like what you asked for in a
report in the nuclear utility industry--and its advocates obviously do
not--then you reject the report. But this represents the consensus of
scientific opinion as chosen by individuals who have no personal
interest in terms of any parochial concerns. Their conclusion
emphatically is that there is no need.
That is the issue which the letter of the President's Chief of Staff
addresses in part, and that is why the Washington Post editorial of
this morning makes the contention that this is too important of an
agenda to be jammed through the latter part of Congress on the strength
of the industry's fabricated claim that it faces an emergency.
So no Member of this body ought to be misled that there is some
crisis. The only crisis is in the mind of the nuclear power industry
which for the last 16 years has tried to engender such a crisis to get
interim storage.
Second, the reason this is such an abomination in my view is that it
effectively emasculates a body of environmental laws which have been
enacted over the past quarter of a century.
To name but a few: the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act,
RCRA, Superfund, FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Endangered Species Act. I make that contention and invite my
colleagues' attention to page 73 of the legislation.
It is very clever, I concede that. But this is the language that
effectively guts the environmental law of America as it applies to this
process:
If the requirements of any law [any law] are inconsistent
with or duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Act and this Act, the Secretary shall comply only [only] with
the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and this Act in
implementing the integrated management system.
So, we clearly, in effect, supersede any provisions in any of the
environmental laws that would be in conflict with this current act. The
effect of that is to bypass them. It has been asserted in some
correspondence that has been circulated that, indeed, there is a
requirement for the National Environmental Policy Environmental Impact
Statement Review. Let me just, again, specifically invite my
colleagues' attention to the language on page 36 of the legislation.
Yes, it talks about an environmental impact statement, but then, in a
series of restrictions, it emasculates such language by saying:
Such Environmental Impact Statement shall not consider the
need for the interim storage facility, including . . . the
time of the initial availability of the interim storage
facility, any alternatives to the storage of spent fuel . . .
and any alternatives to the site of the facility. . . .
That is the essence of what an environmental impact statement is, to
consider other alternatives that might be available. So the effect that
would have is to completely emasculate it.
Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry, I did not hear the President on the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 10\1/2\ minutes on
this side, 3 minutes on the Senator's side.
Mr. BRYAN. I yield myself 7 additional minutes and ask the Chair to
alert me when there are 3 minutes remaining on our time.
Mr. President, another public policy disaster is the statutory
provision in this S. 1936 we are debating this morning that provides
for a 100-millirem standard for us in Nevada. There is an international
consensus that somewhere between 10 and 30 is a reasonable basis.
Indeed, the safe drinking water
[[Page S7845]]
standard is 4 millirems. Our friends from New Mexico, who have been on
the floor to discuss WIPP, the transuranic facility in their own State,
have a 15-millirem standard, but we would have a 100-millirem standard
established by statute. There is no justification for that. I am aware
of no considered body of scientific opinion that suggests that, from a
sole source, an additional 100 millirems be added. I must say, this is
part of an ongoing effort to constantly reduce the levels of health and
safety in placing nuclear waste in the State of Nevada.
Finally, let me briefly talk about a public policy issue that ought
to concern every Member of this Senate. Everybody has talked about
balancing the budget, unfunded mandates and unfunded liability. This
piece of legislation represents one of the largest unfunded liabilities
that would ever be passed by a Congress, because what this legislation
effectively does is to shift the financial burden from the nuclear
utilities to the American taxpayer. It does so in a very clever and
ingenious way. It puts a limitation on the amount of mill tax that can
be assessed to the utilities based upon the kilowatt hours produced at
1 mill.
In the report to Congress by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board, they make it clear that if interim storage is to be pursued in
addition to the permanent repository, that it will require an
additional mill levy, in addition to the 1 mill, and currently
indicates that, with the permanent repository program alone, there is
an unfunded liability of between $3 and $5 billion.
So the effect of this legislation is to shift the burden and make a
major policy departure from what historically was acknowledged from the
time that the 1982 act was passed to the changes in 1987 and all of the
iterations in between that. In effect, it is the utilities which ought
to bear the financial burden.
One can understand why they clearly would like to avoid that burden,
but much like our Social Security system today, it is taking in more
money than is being paid out, and in the outyears, sometime in the next
century, that will reverse. Precisely the same scenario is mandated in
S. 1936, because although currently the amount of revenue coming in may
be adequate to deal with the permanent repository program alone, as
these reactors close--and they are licensed for periods of 40 years--
less money will be coming into the fund at a time when the burdens and
responsibility of handling the storage will continue on through an
indefinite period of time. So this represents a financial disaster for
the country as well.
I will just summarize by saying the legislation is not necessary, and
those are not the assertions or conclusions of the Senators from
Nevada. That is Congress' own Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the
board that was created by an act of Congress in 1987.
Second, it effectively guts the environmental laws. A policy of
dubious merit, in my judgment, mandates a health and safety standard
that no other nation in the world has established.
Finally, it would shift the cost from the utilities to the taxpayers,
and that is bad news for the American taxpayers.
I yield to the distinguished Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Nevada. I will not be long. I commend him for his comments this
morning. I think, as we come to a close in this debate, both Senators
from Nevada have served not only their State well, but this body well
as they have contributed to this debate in a very positive way.
Mr. President, a couple of things have occurred over the weekend that
I feel deserve the attention of the Senate with regard to the issue of
nuclear waste. I would like to address both of them, if I could,
briefly.
This morning, in the Washington Post, the main editorial made quite a
point of saying that the bill we are considering today is wasteful
because, in a sense, we are rushing to a decision that the Post argues
ought to be considered with greater care.
The editorial makes a couple of very important points. I will quote
one in particular:
. . . the nuclear lobby is pushing a bill to designate an
``interim'' storage site in Nevada that would not have to
meet all the standards of a permanent facility.
Mr. President, that is an issue that I think does not get the
attention it deserves from our colleagues as they are considering this
matter. Clearly, if we are considering a site of any magnitude, for any
length of time, that site ought to be required to meet the same high
standards of public health protection as the permanent site.
The editorial is right on point. Under this bill, the interim site
would not have all the standards required of it that a permanent site
would. That is one of many issues that we ought to be considering very
carefully.
Finally, the editorial ends by saying it is,
. . . too important a decision to be jammed through the latter part
of a Congress on the strength of the industry's fabricated claim that
it faces an emergency. On this one, members should imagine the worst--
that bunching and storing the waste will produce the eventual
environmental disaster that some of the critics predict. Then ask
themselves, which among them want to sign their names to that?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the entire editorial be
printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 16, 1996]
Waste Makes Haste
Nuclear power has not turned out to be the blessing the
advance men said it would. Among much else, they presented it
as clean--no more burning of gritty coal--but in the matter
of cleanliness, it has a ghastly problem of its own. The
nuclear issue is waste disposal--what to do with the
enormously toxic spent fuel rods for which there currently is
no long-term home.
The idea was that the utilities would store the spent fuel
in the short run, while the government created a permanent
storage facility. To put it charitably, the government has
been slow to fulfill its part of the bargain. Technology has
been one reason; it's hard to determine how best to deal,
over what will likely be many generations, with a product as
nasty as this. Politics also have been a problem; for obvious
reasons, no one wants the stuff.
In the 1980s Congress fastened on Yucca Mountain in Nevada
as a likely permanent repository. Nevadans resisted the idea,
but Texas and Washington, the other candidates, were more
powerfully represented in the House and able to duck. The
necessary work to settle definitely on Yucca Mountain has
gone slowly, however. The judgments are hard, and the Energy
Department over the years has been less than a model of
efficiency. So now the industry is trying to force the issue.
Anxious to rid itself of the accumulating waste and the
liability that it represents, and fearful that the federal
studies could bog down, the nuclear lobby is pushing a bill
to designate an ``interim'' storage site in Nevada that would
not have to meet all the standards of a permanent facility.
Nevadans see the proposal as a stalking horse to create what
would amount to a permanent facility by another name. The
state's two senators have been holding up other legislation
to keep the storage measure from coming to a vote. A cloture
vote will be held today to cut off their filibuster; they
expect to lose. But the president also has threatened a veto,
and that the Nevadans think they could sustain.
We hope they do, if necessary. The interim bill is the
wrong way to solve what is not yet a fully urgent problem. It
may well be that there is no alternative to permanent
storage--some people think a timely way may yet be found to
detoxify the waste instead. It also may be that Yucca
Mountain is the best available site. But this is too
important a decision to be jammed through the latter part of
a Congress on the strength of the industry's fabricated claim
that it faces an emergency. On this one, members should
imagine the worst--that bunching and storing the waste will
produce the eventual environmental disaster that some of the
critics predict. Then ask themselves, which among them want
to sign their names to that?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply ask, who among us would want to
sign our names to that? Who among us feels the need to rush to
judgment, to make a decision on an interim site based upon what I
consider to be faulty logic, recognizing that we are not subjecting the
interim site to the same standards as a permanent site?
This issue is of such great concern to the President that he has sent
a letter on it to all of us. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter
from the administration be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, July 15, 1996.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: I would like to express the
Administration's position on S.
[[Page S7846]]
1936, a bill to create a centralized interim high-level
nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. The Administration
cannot support this bill, and the President would veto it if
the bill were presented to him in its present form.
The Administration believes it is important to continue
work on a permanent geologic repository. According to the
National Academy of Science, there is a world-wide scientific
consensus that permanent geologic disposal is the best option
for disposing of commercial and other high-level nuclear
waste. This is why the Administration has emphasized cutting
costs and improving the management and performance of the
permanent site characterization efforts underway at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy has been making
significant progress in recent years and is on schedule to
determine the viability of the site in 1998.
Designating the Nevada Test Site as the interim waste site,
as S. 1936 effectively does, will undermine the ongoing Yucca
Mountain evaluation work by siphoning away resources. Perhaps
more importantly, the enactment of this bill will destroy the
credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal program by
prejudicing the Yucca Mountain permanent repository decision.
Choosing a site for an interim storage facility should be
based upon objective science-based criteria and should not be
made before the viability of the Yucca site is determined in
the next two years. This viability assessment, undertaken by
the Department of Energy, will be completed by 1998.
Some have alleged that we need to move spent commercial
fuel rods to a central interim site now. According to a
recent report from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
(NWTRB), an independent board established by Congress, there
is no technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to an
interim central storage facility for the next several years.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that
current technology and methods of storing spent fuel at
reactors are safe. If they were not safe, the NRC would not
license these storage facilities. Also, the NWTRB assures us
that adequate at-reactor storage space is, and will remain,
available for many years.
In S. 1936, the Nevada Test Site is the default site, even
if it proves to be unsuitable for the permanent repository.
This is bad policy. This bill has many other problems,
including those that present serious environmental concerns.
The bill weakens existing environmental standards by
preempting all Federal, state and local laws and applying
only the environmental requirements of this bill and the
Atomic Energy Act. The results of this preemption include:
replacing the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to
set acceptable radiation release standards with a statutory
standard considerably in excess of the exposure permitted by
current regulations; creating loopholes in the National
Environmental Policy Act; and eliminating current licensing
requirements for a permanent repository.
I hope that you will not support S. 1936. It is an unfair,
unneeded, and unworkable bill. We have the time to develop
legislation and plan for an interim storage facility in a
fairer and scientifically valid way while being sensitive to
the concerns of all affected parties. This includes those in
Nevada, those along the rail and roadways over which the
nuclear waste will travel, and those who depend on and live
near the current operating commercial nuclear power plants.
Thanks you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Leon L. Panetta,
Chief of Staff.
Mr. DASCHLE. The letter says, ``The Administration cannot support
this bill, and the President would veto it if the bill were presented
to him in its present form.''
He goes on to say, ``According to a recent report from the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board, an independent board established by
Congress, there is no technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to
an interim central storage facility for the next several years.''
The President also notes, ``The bill weakens existing environmental
standards by preempting all the Federal, state, and local laws and
applying only the environmental requirements of this bill and the
Atomic Energy Act.''
He summarizes the letter by saying, ``I hope you will not support S.
1936. It is an unfair, unneeded and unworkable bill.''
I do not know how you can say it any better than that. I think we can
do better than this. We ought not be rushing to judgment. We ought to
be applying the same standards. We ought to realize there are very
serious consequences associated with the decisions some would have us
make.
So I hope that cooler heads will prevail, that we recognize the
importance of this decision and that we let the process work its will.
That is not too much to ask to make the right decision. The President
believes that, the Washington Post believes that, and I hope that most
of the Senate believes it too.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho wants
to make a statement for the Record.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as we reach the final days of the 104th
Congress, an urgent environmental problem remains unresolved. However,
unlike many issues, fortunately the question of how to deal with this
Nation's high-level nuclear waste has an answer that is responsible,
fair, environmentally friendly, and supported by Members of both
parties.
Today, high-level nuclear waste and highly radioactive used nuclear
fuel is accumulating at more than 80 sites in 41 States. Each year, as
that increases, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at
each of these sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. The only
responsible choice is to support legislation that solves this problem
by safely moving this used fuel to a safe, monitored facility in the
remote Nevada desert. This answer will lead us to a safer future for
all Americans.
To facilitate our consideration of such legislation, Senator
Murkowski and I, introduced S. 1936, a bill to amend the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982. Bill, S. 1936, retains the fundamental goals and
structure of the substitute for S. 1271 that was reported out of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March.
However, S. 1936 contains many important clarifications and changes
that deal with concerns raised regarding the details of that
legislation by Members of this body. In addition, we took into account
the provisions of H.R. 1020, which was reported out of the House
Commerce Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan vote last year. We
adopted much of the language found in H.R. 1020 in order to make the
bill as similar to the bill under consideration in the House as
possible.
I would like to describe some of the most significant of these
changes. S. 1936 eliminates certain provisions contained in S. 1271
that would have limited the application of the National Environmental
Policy Act to the intermodal transfer facility and imposed a general
limitation on NEPA's application to the Secretary's actions to only
those NEPA requirements specified in the bill. This was to allay the
concern that sufficient environmental analysis would not be done under
S. 1271.
S. 1936 clarifies that transportation of spent fuel shall be governed
by all requirements of Federal, State, and local governments and Indian
tribes to the same extent that any person engaging in transportation in
interstate commerce must comply with those requirements. S. 1936 also
allows that the Secretary provide technical assistance and funds for
training to Unions with experience in safety training for
transportation workers. In addition, S. 1936 clarifies that existing
employee protections in title 40 of the United States Code only
addresses the refusal to work in hazardous conditions apply to
transportation under this act. It also provides that certain inspection
activities will be carried out by carmen and operating crews only if
they are adequately trained. Finally, S. 1936 provides authority for
the Secretary of Transportation to establish training standards, as
necessary, for workers engaged in the transportation, storage, and
disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste.
In order to ensure the size and scope of the interim storage facility
is manageable in the context of the overall nuclear waste program, and
yet adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage
needs, S. 1936 would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage
facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel, and the size of phase II
of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would
be expandable to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet her
projected goals with regard to site characterization and licensing of
the permanent repository site. In contrast, S. 1271 provided for
storage of 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel in phase I and 100,000
metric tons in phase II. I would like to clarify that the new volumes
are sufficient to allow storage of current spent naval fuels.
Unlike S. 1271, which provided for unlimited use of existing
facilities at the
[[Page S7847]]
Nevada test site for handling spent fuel at the interim facility, S.
1936 allows only the use of those facilities for emergency situations
during phase I of the interim facility. These facilities should not be
needed during phase I and construction of new facilities will be
overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for any fuel handling
during phase II of the interim facility.
S. 1271 would have set the standard for releases of radioactivity
from the repository at a maximum annual dose to an average member of
the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain at 100
millirem. The 100 millirem standard is fully consistent with current
national and international risk standards designed to protect public
health and safety and the environment. While maintaining an initial 100
millirem standard, S. 1936 would allow the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to apply another standard, if it finds that the standard in
the legislation would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and
safety of the public.
S. 1936 contains provisions not found in S. 1271 that would grant
financial and technical assistance for oversight activities and
payments in lieu of taxes to affected units of local government and
Indian tribes within the State of Nevada. S. 1936 also contains new
provisions transferring certain Bureau of Land Management parcels to
Nye County, NV.
In order to ensure that monies collected for the nuclear waste fund
are utilized for purposes of the Nuclear Waste Program, beginning in
fiscal year 2003, S. 1936 would convert the current Nuclear Waste Fee,
that is paid by electricity consumers, into a user fee that is assessed
based upon the level of appropriations for the year in which the fee is
collected.
Section 408 of S. 1271 provided authority for the Secretary to
execute emergency relief contracts with certain eligible utilities that
would provide for qualified entities to ship, store, and condition
spent nuclear fuel. This provision concerned some Members who feared it
could be interpreted to provide new authority for reprocessing in this
country or abroad. This provision is not contained in S. 1936.
S. 1271 contained a provision that stated the actions authorized by
the bill would be governed only by the requirements of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act. S. 1936 eliminates this provision and instead
provides that, if any law is inconsistent with the provisions of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, those acts will
govern. S. 1936 further provides that any requirement of a State or
local government is preempted only if complying with the State or local
requirement and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is impossible, or if the
requirement is an obstacle to carrying out the act. This language is
consistent with the preemption authority found in the existing
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
S. 1936 authorizes the Secretary to take title to the spent fuel at
the Dairyland Power Cooperative's La Crosse reactor, and authorizes the
Secretary to pay for the onsite storage of the fuel until DOE removes
the fuel from the site under terms of the act. This is a provision that
I felt was necessary to equitably address concerns in Wisconsin and
Iowa.
S. 1936 contains language making a number of changes designed to
improve the management of the Nuclear Waste Program to ensure the
program is operated, to the maximum extent possible, in like manner to
a private business. I feel this will improve the overall management of
the spent fuel program.
Finally the bill contains language that addresses Senator Johnston's
concerns. The language in S. 1936 provides that construction shall not
begin on an interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December
31, 1998. I am most pleased to now have Senator Johnston's support of
this legislation.
The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability
of the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress by the
Secretary of Energy 6 months before the construction can begin on the
interim facility. If, based upon the information before him, the
President determines, in his discretion, that Yucca Mountain is not
suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall
cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the
Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides that, if the President
makes such a determination, he shall have 18 months to designate an
interim storage facility site. If the President fails to designate a
site, or if a site he has designated has not been approved by Congress
within 2 years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to
construct an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site.
This provision ensures that the construction of an interim storage
facility at the Yucca Mountain site will not occur before the President
and Congress have had an ample opportunity to review the technical
assessment of the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site for a
permanent repository and to designate an alternative site for interim
storage based upon that technical information. However, this provision
also ensures that, ultimately, an interim storage facility site will be
chosen. Without this assurance, we leave open the possibility we would
find in 1998 we have no interim storage, no permanent repository
program, and--after more than 15 years and $6 billion spent--we are
back to where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That is within the 50 States in the Union
we must locate a site to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
This issue provides a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have
one, remote, safe, and secure nuclear waste storage facility. Or,
through inaction and delay, we can perpetuate the status quo and have
80 such sites spread across the Nation. It is irresponsible to shirk
our responsibility to protect the environment and the future for our
children and grandchildren. This Nation needs to confront its nuclear
waste problem now. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support
the passage of S. 1936.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, much has been made here of the so-
called nuclear lobby relative to this bill and the status of the issue
we have before us.
Let's not be misled. We have letters from 22 States to the President
and Members of Congress; 11 from Governors and 12 from attorneys
general urging action on the nuclear waste legislation, and that action
is now. Governors of Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Vermont have all written to the
President; attorneys general from Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio. Others who have written to
Congress include Arizona, Massachusetts, Virginia, Wisconsin, Rhode
Island, Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, and Oregon.
So this is not the nuclear lobby we are talking about. We are talking
about Governors, attorneys general in 41 States who are concerned about
a problem that Congress has ignored. They have collected from the
ratepayers $12 billion. We have expended over $1 billion on this
process.
The Washington Post tells us it is not an urgent problem. Well, the
Washington Post does not have any nuclear waste next to them. They do
not have any in Washington, DC. But it is a problem in Illinois. It is
a problem in California. It is a problem throughout the United States.
We have heard the statement from the Washington Post, and the
minority leader suggested that we heed the Washington Post editorial
relative to the issue that environmental laws are not being adhered to.
All State and local transportation safety laws apply to the Department
of Energy exactly as they apply to private carriers of hazardous
materials. Other environmental laws are only preempted to the extent
they conflict with this act.
This act sets forth very stringent environmental standards that apply
only to this very unique facility. There are no environmental laws that
apply specifically to this facility because there is no other facility
like this. This provision simply ensures that we do not have
conflicting laws governing this facility. We have the laws, though, Mr.
President. A provision regarding NEPA simply states that the
environmental impact statement that will be prepared will not have to
address alternatives that Congress has eliminated from consideration.
This is really only a clarification that the EIS need not reconsider
issues that we are deciding here
[[Page S7848]]
today, like the fact that an interim facility should be built or how
the site for that facility will be chosen. In all other respects, NEPA
will apply under its own terms.
Mr. President, the President has not taken a position on this to
rectify it. He simply has condemned every effort by Congress to address
the situation. He and the administration have a responsibility to
respond positively with a suggestion instead of negatively to
everything that Congress proposes to address the problem.
I urge my colleagues to vote cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I remind everyone in this Chamber of the
charts Chairman Murkowski showed us earlier. They show nuclear waste
stored in 80 sites across America. They show another chart with one
site, the Nevada test site, and they claim that all the waste will be
moved from these many sites to this one site. This simply is wrong, and
it is misleading.
Nuclear waste will remain at the nuclear reactors for as long as
these nuclear reactors operate and long afterward. Nuclear waste will
be stored in these cooling ponds at these reactors during their
operation and after they shut down. Dry cask storage will be required
at many of these reactors, whether or not S. 1936 passes.
Those Senators who believe that S. 1936 will get nuclear waste out of
their backyards are misinformed, and they are wrong. The first chart of
the junior Senator from Alaska, the chart with waste stored across the
Nation, represents our future under S. 1936, as well as our past. In
addition to waste in the backyards that it is already in, it will be in
the backyards of places all over this country along the transportation
routes.
Remember, Mr. President, we have already had seven nuclear waste
accidents, 1 for every 300 trips. We are going to have thousands of
trips; 12,000 shipments alone will go through the State of Illinois;
thousands through Massachusetts; almost 12,000 through Nebraska and
Wyoming.
This legislation is wrongheaded. I repeat from the editorial this
morning in the Washington Post:
But this is too important a decision to be jammed through
the latter part of a Congress on the strength of the
industry's fabricated claim . . . .
This is legislation that is unnecessary. It is based upon one
fabrication after another. It should be soundly defeated. We ask the
motion to invoke cloture not prevail.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask
unanimous consent that William Murphie be granted the privilege of the
floor during the consideration of this bill, S. 1936, a bill to amend
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe all time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Nevada still control a few
minutes.
Mr. REID. We yield back the time.
____________________