[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7918-S7919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1996

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we had a good discussion today about 
the status of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository and I think the 
record should reflect discussion of some points that have been made 
that require a little further examination.
  First of all, we have heard the terminology ``millirem'' as the 
standard measure for radioactivity. Much has been said about the 100-
millirem standard in protecting the public health and safety. We have 
that responsibility, but I think we should put it in perspective 
because the average member of the public really does not know how to 
relate 100 millirems to his or her everyday life.
  The proposed limit in the bill has been set at 100 millirems as a 
standard. It may interest my colleagues that one receives over 100 
millirems extra per year by living in a house, a White House, at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue. It is a stone building with attendant natural 
radiation. Now, the Senator from Nevada says 100 extra millirems is too 
high. Is the Senator suggesting that 100 extra millirems is OK for the 
White House but not OK for a fence line deep in the Nevada desert; that 
100 extra millirems OK for the President of the United States, his 
family or Socks, the cat, but not OK for jackrabbits or roadrunners out 
in Nevada?
  Mr. President, you also get 100 extra millirems from living in 
Denver, because of its altitude. Do we prohibit people from living in 
Denver? Of course not, because 100 millirems do not harm anyone. It is 
an internationally accepted standard. So the public should keep in 
perspective these terms.

  Today, Mr. President, we got 65 votes for cloture. That was a good 
vote, but, unfortunately we did not get votes from some of the States 
where this nuclear waste issue is a legitimate concern. I had hoped we 
would get votes, say, from our Members from Connecticut. Now, what is 
the justification for Connecticut, you might wonder. Mr. President, we 
build naval submarines in Connecticut. These are nuclear submarines. 
These submarines produce waste. Connecticut gets the jobs. They do not 
have to keep the waste. Where does the waste go? Well, currently a lot 
of it is going to Idaho. My point is simple: we all have a 
responsibility. We all have a share in the question of what to 
responsibly do with nuclear waste.
  Now, another interesting thing, as we look at the voting makeup of 
this body, Connecticut generates 73.7 percent of its electricity from 
nuclear power. Connecticut ratepayers have paid $429 million into the 
waste fund. What have they got to show for it? Absolutely nothing. I 
think as we look at the various States and their positions, we have to 
recognize we all have a share in this. Florida--well, we did not do 
quite as well as we had hoped, but we did about half-and-half. Florida 
ratepayers pay more than half a billion into the fund, yet nuclear 
waste sites at Turkey Point Power Plant right in between two national 
parks, the Everglades National Park and the Biscayne National Monument.
  Now, there are other States where we did not get a level of support 
that we might have. My good friends from Hawaii do not have a nuclear 
power plant, but they do store highly enriched naval fuel. If we can't 
solve the waste problem this fuel in Hawaii has no place to go. It 
stays in Hawaii. Also, if we do not pass this bill, I assume we will 
see more and more pressure to find some site, perhaps in the Pacific. 
We have seen Palmyra brought up time and time again as a possible dump 
site. I do not support that at this time but, again, I think we all 
have a voice in resolving this issue.
  There are other States that have an interest in resolving this issue. 
The State of Delaware imports nuclear power and has paid $29 million 
into the fund. New Mexico imports nuclear power and has paid $32 
million into the fund. California, 26.3 percent of its generation is 
nuclear energy. California has paid $645 million into this fund that 
the Federal Government has collected, which now totals nearly $12 
billion.
  This was a fund established, if you will, Mr. President, to ensure 
that the Federal Government had the means in order to take this nuclear 
waste by 1998. Arkansas, 33 percent of the generation comes from 
nuclear power. They put $266 million into the fund.
  Colorado has an interest. They are concerned about access of nuclear 
waste through their State, but they have a reactor that has been shut 
down, awaiting decommissioning, no place for the fuels to go. So what 
will happen, Mr. President? Well, nothing will happen. Colorado is 
going to be stuck with that reactor until such time as Congress 
authorizes a repository and the fuel can be removed.
  Indiana imports nuclear power. It paid $288 million into the fund. 
North Dakota relies on nuclear power, it paid $11 million into the 
fund. Nebraska, 30 percent generating from nuclear power paid $136 
million into the fund. Wisconsin, 23 percent of Wisconsin generation 
comes from nuclear energy, and they paid $336 million into the fund. 
Kentucky relies on nuclear power and $81 million has been paid into the 
fund. Ohio, 7.7 percent of their generation, $253 million into the 
fund. Iowa, 13 percent, $192 million. Massachusetts, 15 percent of the 
power comes from nuclear power. They paid $319 million. What do they 
have to show for it? What did the ratepayers get in Massachusetts? 
Absolutely nothing. Maryland, next door to us, 24 percent of their 
power is nuclear, $257 million paid in, nothing to show for it. New 
York, 28 percent of their power is nuclear, they paid in $734 million. 
Rhode Island relies on nuclear power, $8 million paid into the fund.
  It is important, Mr. President, that every Senator reflect as he 
represents his or her own State, the realization that we are all in the 
nuclear waste situation together, and we all have to get out of it 
together. Senate bill 1936 is the most important meaningful 
environmental legislation to come before the Senate because it 
addresses the health, safety, and environment of the American people 
who live with this high-level waste in storage sites in 41 States in 
our Nation.
  Senate bill 1936 was well-crafted and developed after years of study 
and months of discussion and negotiation. It is based on sound science 
and meets every legitimate concern imaginable. Much of the rhetoric we 
have heard today is based on fear, and a good deal is based on 
politics. The bottom line is that somebody has to get it and, 
unfortunately, the site that has been chosen is a site where we have 
had nuclear testing for some 50 years out in the desert in Nevada.
  The opposition would, in my opinion, attempt to delay this process of 
addressing health, safety, and environmental issues on behalf of the 
American people for a short-term political advantage, and it also lacks 
the responsibility of coming up with viable alternatives. The right 
decision is to support Senate bill 1936. It is right in terms of 
health, safety, and the environment.
  There are a couple of other points that I think are necessary to make 
as a consequence of the debate that we have had throughout the day. I 
compliment my two friends from Nevada because I know how they feel. I 
know how they are fighting to represent the interests of their State. 
But, again, somebody has to take this waste. Now, there has been 
generalization that somehow we are waiving some of the environmental 
laws. That is not the case, Mr. President. Complaints by environmental 
groups about the NEPA waivers in Senate bill 1271 have been addressed 
in S. 1936. We do not waive NEPA for the intermodal transfer 
facilities, as the previous bill did. Unlike the previous bill, there 
is no general limitation on NEPA in Senate bill 1936.
  During the debate, there was a list of laws that were proposed that 
would be waived or would not be applicable that were suggested by the 
Senators from Nevada. I would like to briefly mention that S. 1936 
contains a comprehensive regulatory licensing program plan for a 
permanent facility. This is a unique facility, Mr. President. There is 
no other facility like it. That is why. Thus, there are no specific 
environmental laws, other than the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that is 
designed to regulate permanent geologic repositories for nuclear waste. 
So it is self-evident. There

[[Page S7919]]

is no use in trying to develop a situation where we cannot possibly 
achieve this because we do not have a prototype to go on. We are bound 
by the existing environmental laws, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We 
are not waiving basically anything relative to this repository.
  The language in S. 1936, section 501, simply provides that the 
specific environmental standards set forth in that bill will govern if 
they conflict with other more general laws that were mentioned by the 
Senators from Nevada.
  Mr. President, the language in this bill merely prevents 
environmental law from being misused to reconsider the decisions that 
we are making today in this Congress. Senate bill 1936 is a bill to 
prevent a gridlock--and that is what we have been in--and to prevent 
stalemate--and that is what we have been in. All we have to do is to 
say that Congress has decided that we will build an interim site in 
Nevada, and we do not let the NEPA process revisit that decision. That 
is what we are saying, Mr. President.
  We started on this, I think, in 1983 or thereabouts. We have expended 
15 years. We have expended almost $6 billion trying to determine a 
process and a site. The responsibility to conclude that is now. As we 
proceed with a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, this will 
provide the movement and the storage in casks of the high-level waste 
from the various sites around the country.
  Mr. President, I have a couple of other points, and I will conclude 
because the hour is late.
  The State of California, as an example, has six nuclear units, 
including the Rancho Seco. These are reactors that have been shut down 
since about 1989, or thereabouts. But they cannot be decommissioned 
until the spent fuel is taken away from the site. What do the people of 
California want? They want that former reactor removed and the site 
brought back to its previous state? Surely, they do. But it is not 
going to happen unless we pass a bill like this. The estimated cost of 
monitoring each shut down reactor is some $50 million per year. You 
will never get rid of them unless you have a place to put the spent 
fuel. And the place to put it is in the one place that has been 
designated in S. 1936.

  Now, finally, there have been references to the industry's role and 
that somehow this process is a fabrication. The Record will note 
letters from some 23 Governors and attorneys general relative to the 
necessity of this bill passing, so that they can get some relief for 
the storage of nuclear waste that is in their States in pools and is 
about to exceed the licensing capability. And as far as suggesting that 
the Washington Post editorial somehow is the beneficial voice of 
reason, I think one should simply go back and read it. It says, ``Waste 
Makes Haste.'' Well, Mr. President, we have been at this 15 years. We 
have been at it to the tune of $6 billion. The Washington Post 
editorial does not propose a solution. S. 1936 is a responsible 
solution to the problem of nuclear waste. May I suggest that the 
Washington Post is a responsible solution to the problem of parakeet 
pet waste.
  I was very pleased with the vote today. We got 65 votes for cloture 
on the motion to proceed. We had one Senator out, who is inclined to 
vote for us. So that gives us 66. That is one short of overriding the 
Presidential veto. That is why I went on to great length in my 
statement, to encourage those Senators who did not vote with us on 
cloture to reflect a little bit on their own situation in their own 
State relative to whether or not they are building nuclear submarines 
and do not want to have any part of the responsibility for the waste 
when those submarines are cut off, but purporting to simply give the 
responsibility to the State of Idaho is being unrealistic and unfair.
  I am sure that, as we address the new technology in nuclear 
submarines, there are some Members here that will remind the Senators 
from Connecticut, as an example, that they, too, must bear the 
responsibility associated with what nuclear technology provides our 
country in the interest of our national defense, but, as well, in the 
responsibility of addressing what we could do with the nuclear waste in 
Senate bill 1936, which is the best answer we have had so far--
certainly a responsible one, unlike the position of the administration, 
which has chosen to duck the issue.
  We would have an entirely different matter if we were debating a 
proposal that the administration had vis-a-vis a proposal that had come 
through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. That is not the 
case, as the evidence has suggested. In the communications with the 
White House that I have had over the last couple of years relative to 
trying to address this, along with my colleague, Senator Johnston, we 
have found that the White House has simply chosen to duck the issue. 
They do not want it to come up before the election. They are satisfied 
with the status quo. Well, the American public is not satisfied with 
the status quo. The Governors in the States are not satisfied with the 
status quo. The attorneys general are not satisfied. And the Government 
has reneged on its commitment to the ratepayers to provide, by 1998, 
the capability of storing that waste, and the Government is not 
prepared to deliver. Yet, they have collected $12 billion from the 
ratepayers.
  I think I have made my case for the merits of this legislation. As we 
continue to debate, I urge my colleagues to reflect a little bit on the 
fact that we are all in this together and we all have to share the 
responsibility together.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see no other Senator wishing 
recognition. I wish the Chair a good day.

                          ____________________