[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9209-S9215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1996
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Chair lays before the Senate
S. 1936, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1936) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 5055
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5055 which is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 5055.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment will solve a pressing
environmental problem, a major environmental problem in our Nation, a
problem that is looming as a liability to the taxpayers, and this will
end an era of irresponsible delay.
This major environmental issue is simple to understand. That is, do
we want 80 nuclear waste dumps in 41 States serving 110 commercial
reactors and defense sites across the country--near our neighbors, our
schools and populated cities? Or do we want just one in the remote,
unpopulated Nevada desert where we tested and exploded nuclear weapons
for decades?
Mr. President, I am going to yield some time on the amendment to the
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the Senate President pro
tempore, Senator Thurmond, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S.
1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996. In 1982, Congress passed
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which directed the Department of Energy
to develop a permanent repository for highly radioactive waste from
nuclear powerplants and defense facilities. This act was amended in
1987 to limit DOE's repository development activities to a single site
at Yucca Mountain, NV. Since 1983, electric consumers have been taxed
almost $12 billion to finance the development of a permanent storage
site. Despite DOE's obligation to take title to spent nuclear fuel in
1998, a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain will not be ready to
accept this waste until the year 2010, at the earliest.
Mr. President, a July 16, 1996, Washington Post editorial states that
the nuclear waste storage situation is not
[[Page S9210]]
yet a fully urgent problem. I believe that it is a fully urgent
problem. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 41 States at facilities
that were never intended for long-term storage. At least 23 nuclear
reactors are nearing full storage capacity for their spent fuel.
According to a Washington Post article from December 31, 1995, every
day, 6 more tons of high-level radioactive waste pile up at the
Nation's 109 nuclear powerplants, a total of some 30,000 tons of spent
fuel rods so far. If it were all shaped into midsize cars, it would
fill every parking space at the Pentagon--twice over--with material
that will be dangerous for centuries. And there's nowhere for it to go.
On July 23, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit correctly ruled that DOE must begin disposing of this
waste by 1998. Unless we designate an appropriate storage site soon,
DOE will be unable to safely fulfill this obligation. Without a central
interim site, DOE may be forced to use existing DOE facilities that are
unsuitable for waste storage. Or, if DOE continues to evade its
obligation to store waste by 1998, facility operators may then have to
expand onsite storage at an additional cost to ratepayers. Powerplants
may have to close down, adversely affecting the reliability of electric
services and depleting funding for the Federal disposal program.
Because DOE will fail to provide an appropriate facility for this waste
on time, we must designate a temporary central storage site
immediately. Anything less would be irresponsible and dangerous to the
environment.
The most logical location for an interim site is Yucca Mountain.
Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is a delicate undertaking, so it
is sensible to locate an interim facility as near to the likely
permanent facility as is possible. We have already spent 13 years and
$6 billion to find a permanent repository site and conduct development
activities at Yucca Mountain. Designating a central interim storage
facility and continuing to develop a permanent repository at Yucca
Mountain is our most reasonable course of action.
S. 1936 provides a safe, efficient, and responsible means for
reaching this objective. I would like to commend Senator Craig and
Senator Murkowski for their excellent work on this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of final passage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. Again, I thank the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank my good friend and
colleague for his support in addressing once and for all the issue of
high-level nuclear waste in this country.
Mr. President, I think it is significant to reflect that at last we
have in our extended debate with our good friends from Nevada basically
broken the filibuster on this issue. Today the Senate is going to have
the chance to debate the issue and reach conclusions. We are
demonstrating, I think, that we do have the courage to address this
difficult problem, recognizing that it is one of the major
environmental issues before the U.S. Senate.
Two weeks ago Senator Craig, Senator Johnston, and I stood on this
floor and said the Government had an obligation to take this spent
fuel. Of course, some disagreed with us. Some argued that the
Government had no such obligation. But a curious thing happened last
week. A Federal appeals court unanimously ruled the Government does,
indeed, have an obligation to take the spent fuel; as a matter of fact,
a statutory obligation.
Mr. President, this is a landmark decision, because it makes it
imperative for us to pass this bill today. The situation has radically
changed since our last vote.
I appeal to my colleagues, if you did not vote with us last time,
there is a good reason to vote with us today. That reason is very
simple: The court unanimously ruled that the Government does have an
obligation to take the spent fuel. Again, Mr. President, that is a
statutory obligation. The courts have confirmed our contention that the
Federal Government has the obligation to take spent commercial fuel.
Failure to pass this bill and build an interim repository means the
Government will have to take the fuel and put it somewhere else, or
simply pay the damages. The court has not specified the amount of the
damages yet because, technically, the Government has not yet broken its
promise. But the damages could run into the billions of dollars if the
Government reneges on its obligation. If we do not build an interim
repository in Nevada, the Government might have to store the fuel at
other Federal facilities around the Nation.
The interesting thing about this problem, Mr. President, you simply
cannot just throw spent fuel up in the air and defer the decision about
where to store it. It has to come down somewhere. It has to be stored
somewhere. Perhaps it will be the naval fuel storage facility in
Connecticut, or maybe Rocky Flats or Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, or
maybe the Pinellas plant in Florida, or maybe in Ohio, Portsmouth,
Mound or Fernald, or maybe West Valley in New York, or perhaps Paducah
in Kentucky, or perhaps it will be in Hanford on the Columbia River,
which flows through Oregon and Washington.
Therefore, Senators, I appeal to you, those from Connecticut,
Colorado, Florida, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, Oregon, those who did not
vote with us for cloture on the motion to proceed, you might want to
reexamine your position in light of the recent court decision, which
simply states the Federal Government has to take it. The court has said
the Government must take the spent fuel. As I have said, it has to go
somewhere. If you are saying no to Nevada, you may be saying yes to
your own State. You are certainly saying yes to someplace else.
Last night I received a letter from Secretary of Energy O'Leary that
criticizes Senate bill 1936 because it provides for the Department of
Energy to begin accepting waste in 1999 and not 1998. I repeat, Mr.
President, last night we did receive a letter from the Secretary
criticizing Senate bill 1936 because it provides for the DOE to begin
accepting waste in 1999, not 1998. This criticism is almost humorous in
light of the fact that the current administration would not provide for
the acceptance of waste at a central facility until the year 2010 at
the earliest. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the Department
of Energy would be in breach of its contract for 12 years.
Further, the letter is inconsistent on its face because it then
proceeds to criticize Senate bill 1936 for providing unrealistic
schedules. It seems the administration believes our bill would provide
an interim storage facility both too late or perhaps too soon.
Senate bill 1936 provides a valid, realistic plan for the
construction of a safe, centralized interim storage facility. I have
personally sent over four letters to the President over the last 18
months asking for his plan if he opposed any legislation pending before
this body. I have received only support for the status quo.
Again, I repeat, if you were not with us before, you have reason to
be with us today. The court's decision has made it clear that the
status quo is not an acceptable option.
Now, Mr. President, I make a few comments for the benefit of those
Senators who did not vote with us 2 weeks ago. That is, very
realistically, the ratepayers in your State are getting ripped off.
They paid for something, and they are not getting anything in return.
Instead of saving more for their children's college fund or saving for
their dream home, consumers paid into the nuclear waste fund through
their individual electric bill. They paid somewhere in the neighborhood
of almost $12 billion. They have paid this money with the expectation
that the Government would live up to their part of the bargain and
remove the waste as it promised. But the Government simply has not
performed. The waste is still there. It is near the homes, near the
schools, it is near the neighborhoods. The opponents of this
legislation are working to keep the status quo, and to keep the waste
where it is.
I want to again run down the list of States where those Senators did
not vote with us, or at least one of the Senators did, and repeat how
much the consumers of those States have spent for the nuclear waste
fund. The State of Arkansas has contributed $266 million into that
fund, and they receive 33
[[Page S9211]]
percent of their electric power from nuclear energy; California, $645
million has been paid by the ratepayers, they receive 26 percent of
their electricity from nuclear power; Connecticut, $429 million paid
in, and they receive 73 percent of their power from nuclear energy.
It is rather interesting, as well, because I was reminded by my
friend from Idaho that we build various submarines in Connecticut;
after they are decommissioned they are cut up, and various parts of the
reactors go to Hanford, where they are buried, and the fuel goes to
Idaho, where they are currently stored. The point is, Mr. President, we
all have an interest in this issue of what to do with nuclear waste.
Florida, $557 million from ratepayers, for receiving 18 percent on
nuclear energy; Massachusetts, $319 million paid by the ratepayers, 14
percent dependent on nuclear energy; Maryland, $257 million, 24 percent
of their power is nuclear; New York, $734 million ratepayers in New
York have paid into the fund and they are 28 percent dependent on
nuclear energy; Ohio, $253 million has been paid in, 7 percent
dependent on nuclear energy; Wisconsin, $336 million paid by the
ratepayer, 23 percent of their energy comes from nuclear.
There are other States with no nuclear plants that, nevertheless,
depend on nuclear power from neighboring States, and they have also
paid into that fund. Those States are: Delaware, $29 million; Indiana,
$288 million; Iowa, $192 million; Kentucky, $81 million; New Mexico,
$32 million; North Dakota, $11 million; Rhode Island, $8 million. Mr.
President, that adds up to a total of $4.537 billion. That is a lot of
money to throw away without results. That is not our money, Mr.
President; that was money collected from Americans to deal with nuclear
waste.
Do we really want to tell consumers from those States that after
allowing this money to be taken from their electric bills, we are not
going to use that money to solve the nuclear waste problem? Do we want
to tell consumers that we are going to make them pay, once again, for
additional waste storage at reactor sites, or that we will expose them
and all taxpayers to tremendous liabilities arising out of the court
cases I mentioned earlier? The extent of these liabilities are very
difficult to estimate, but we know they are going to be high.
There are yet other reasons to join us in supporting this amendment,
and I appeal to my colleagues. After the 65-to-34 cloture vote on the
motion to proceed to Senate bill 1936 2 weeks ago, we received many
constructive suggestions for improving the bill.
Amendment No. 5055 would replace the text of Senate bill 1936 with
new language and incorporate these changes. The most important of the
changes are as follows:
A role for the EPA. The amendment provides that the Environmental
Protection Agency shall issue standards for the protection of the
public from releases of radioactive materials from a permanent nuclear
waste repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to base
its licensing determination on whether the repository can be operated
in accordance with EPA's radiation protection standards.
Another issue was transportation routing. The amendment includes the
language of an amendment that was filed by Senator Moseley-Braun, which
provides for further assurance of the safe transportation of these
materials by requiring the Secretary of Energy to use routes that
minimize, to the maximum practical extent, transportation through
populated and sensitive environmental areas.
Elimination of civil service exemption. As requested by Senator
Glenn, the amendment strikes the provisions in title VII that would
have exempted the nuclear waste program from civil service laws and
regulations.
Elimination of train inspection limitation. The amendment includes
language provided by Senator Pressler that strikes any reference to who
shall perform inspections of trains. This is to address concerns that
the language in Senate bill 1936 would change existing law with regard
to train inspections.
Clarify scope of the Department of Transportation training standards.
The amendment clarifies that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
primary authority for the training of workers in nuclear-related
activities. However, the Department of Transportation is authorized to
promulgate worker safety training standards for removal and
transportation of spent fuel if it finds that there are gaps in the NRC
regulations.
Next, Mr. President, is elimination of permanent disposal research
provisions. This amendment eliminates the section requiring the
Department of Energy to establish an office to study new technologies
for the disposal of nuclear waste.
Elimination of budget priorities. This amendment eliminates a section
providing that the Secretary must prioritize funds appropriated to the
nuclear waste program to the construction of the interim storage
facility. This provision, obviously, is no longer needed in light of
DOE's reevaluation of its budget requirements for the program.
Elimination of direct reference to Chalk Mountain route. The
amendment eliminates the reference to the map outlining the heavy haul
route through Nellis Air Force Base. The amendment simply provides that
the DOE must use heavy haul to transport casks from the intermodal
transfer facility at Caliente, NV, and does not specify any particular
route.
Remove failure to finalize viability assessment as a trigger for
raising size of phase 2. Senate bill 1936 provides that phase 2 of the
interim storage facility will be no larger than the 40,000 metric tons
of spent fuel, but provides a series of triggers that will allow the
Department of Energy to expand the facility to 60,000 metric tons.
The amendment eliminates DOE's failure to complete a viability
assessment of the permanent repository in 1998 as a trigger, making the
first trigger the license application for the permanent repository in
the year 2002.
Limitation and clarification of ``preliminary decisionmaking''
language. The amendment clarifies that the prelicensing construction
activities authorized by 203(e)(1) are the only construction activities
that will be considered to be ``preliminary decisionmaking''
activities.
Further, the amendment corrects this section by indicating that the
use of the existing E-Mad facility at the interim storage site for
emergency fuel handling in phase 1 is considered to be a preliminary
decisionmaking activity. Senate bill 1936 mistakenly refers to use of
facilities use authorized another section, which was the entire interim
storage facility.
Mr. President, we believe these changes, in addition to those already
made in Senate bill 1936, provide additional assurance that the
construction and the operation of an integrated management system will
be carried out with the utmost sensitivity to environmental and safety
concerns.
However, Senate bill 1936 will still allow the Department of Energy
to resolve this urgent environmental problem by meeting its obligation
to store and dispose of spent fuel and nuclear waste in a timely
manner.
Obviously, I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this
amendment and support final passage of Senate bill 1936.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I understand that there may be some
ambiguity in the unanimous-consent request and that it may give 4 hours
to the distinguished Senator from Alaska and 4 hours to the less
distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I think that would really be a
good way to do it, but, unfortunately, my friends from Nevada are
insistent that they be granted equal time.
So I ask unanimous consent that, to the extent there is ambiguity,
the Senator from Alaska have his 4 hours, and the other 4 hours be
under the control of the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it would be appropriate to
defer to our colleagues from Nevada at this time.
How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 36 seconds.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure that my friend from Louisiana, as well as
Senator Craig, would like to be heard from. But I think we should
perhaps go to the other side at this time.
[[Page S9212]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid] is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Will the Chair advise the Senator from Nevada when he has
used 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the substitute is nothing more than a
regurgitation of S. 1936. It changes absolutely nothing. It is just a
rearranging of words. That is all it is. There are no constructive
suggestions. It answers none of the questions that have been propounded
by a number of Senators on this issue.
There has been the term used that the ratepayers are being ripped
off. Mr. President, the only rip-off occurring to the taxpayers of this
country would be if this travesty, S. 1936, is allowed to pass.
The substitute offered by my friend from Alaska does not address any
of the substantive problems regarding the underlying legislation. This
is still bad legislation, unnecessary legislation, and still very
dangerous legislation. This is effectively at least the third
substitute for the original bill, S. 1271. We went from S. 1271 to S.
1936 to the chairman's substitute, and now to this substitute
amendment. They are all the same. There are no changes. Changing the
number of the legislation will not help the substantive aspect of this
legislation.
As each of the earlier versions were shown to be seriously flawed, a
cosmetic substitute was offered. This amendment contains that same
failed strategy--change the number and talk about the great changes in
the bill. A loose examination--not a close examination--a loose
examination indicates that there are literally no changes. None of
these substitutes have addressed the fundamental flaws of the proposed
legislation.
This version, as well as the previous one, tramples on our
environment, our safety, and our health laws. There has been nothing
done to answer why this legislation is necessary. It is not. There has
been nothing to indicate why the risk standard is 400 percent higher
than any other risk standard. There is nothing to answer why we preempt
Federal law. There is nothing to answer how you are going to handle the
difficult transportation problems. There is nothing to answer the
most--and it is so interesting that there is never a word from the
proponents of this legislation about the report to Congress from the
Secretary of Energy that was filed this year by the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board where they said, ``Is there urgent technical
need for centralized storage of commercial spent fuel?'' And the answer
is clearly no. The board ``sees no compelling technical or safety
reason to move spent fuel to a centralized storage facility. The
methods now used to store spent fuel at reactor sites are safe and will
remain safe for decades to come.''
There has never been a response to this except legislate them out of
business. That is what this legislation does. If you do not agree with
the proponents of the powerful nuclear lobby, then legislate them out
of business. That is what they have done here.
It is also quite interesting that they have done nothing to address
the results of a court case last year. They come and talk about a spin.
They should sign on to one of the Presidential campaigns. The court
case does not help their case. The court case settles the contractual
dispute between Michigan-Indiana Power and the Department of Energy. We
will talk about that later.
But in the briefs filed by the power utilities they did not even seek
to relieve these people who gave the decision. There is nothing wrong
with the decision. We have an amendment that is going to incorporate
the results of that opinion into this legislation--but anything to
confuse and to get the ideas of the powerful nuclear lobby in the eyes
of the public with full-page ads in newspapers all over the country.
Who pays for that?
Mr. President, I think that we should recognize that every
environmental group in America--not those that are to the left nor
those to the right--every environmental group in America is opposed to
this legislation; is opposed to this amendment.
Public Citizen yesterday came out because it was a letter sent to
Senators by the other side saying we should pass this nuclear waste
bill because EPA's authority has been restored. Wrong again--false
advertising. And it explains why.
Another group, National Resources Defense Council:
On behalf of the quarter million members of the National
Resources Defense Council, I am writing you to urge you to
oppose 1936 and the amendment. It would curtail a broad range
of environmental health and safety laws. It would quadruple
allowable radiation standards for waste storage. It would
exacerbate the risk of transportation of nuclear waste
throughout the country. Please vote no on 1936.
Before turning this over to my colleague from Nevada, Mr. President,
I want to refer to part of a letter that was sent to all Senators last
week. Here is part of the language from it.
S. 1936 is a bill only a polluter could love. The measure
attacks the Environmental Protection Agency, curtails Federal
environmental regulations, preempts State laws . . .
And I should have a little editorial ``exempts Federal laws.
. . . and sets a repository standard that allows four times
the radiation exposure of current regulations. Oppose S.
1936.
That says it all.
I yield to my colleague from Nevada. I reserve the remainder of my
time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from
Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 6
minutes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, this may be the last bill that I will floor manage as
a U.S. Senator. It happens to be on a subject matter that it has fallen
my lot to deal with for some 20 years now--dealing with nuclear waste.
It is a lot that has fallen to me because of jurisdictions on the
committees of which I have been involved.
I have not enjoyed being in opposition to my friends from Nevada who
have done an absolutely marvelous job with an absolutely bankrupt case
in my view which means that the people of Nevada to the extent they
agree with their Nevada Senators ought to be greatly appreciative of
the excellent job they have done, as I say, with a weak case. When I
say a weak case, Mr. President, the amazing thing to me is that Nevada
can be so opposed to having a nuclear waste site when at the same time
they have been so anxious to have a nuclear test site for exploding
nuclear bombs because with nuclear bombs all they did was dig a hole
and shoot the bombs underground--some even as low as the water table--
hundreds of these nuclear tests that involved all of the radioactivity
materials that are present in nuclear waste: Thorium, cesium 137,
strontium 90, plutonium--all of these daughter elements of a nuclear
explosion, the same thing as you have in nuclear wastes. Nevada was not
only willing to have these nuclear tests but anxious to have the
nuclear tests.
As chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee I sit
shoulder to shoulder with my friends from Nevada, the Senators from
Nevada, in seeking more nuclear tests. My motive was that I thought we
ought to have reliability and safety in our nuclear arsenal and,
therefore, a few years ago I proposed that. My friends from Nevada
argued the same thing and also argued the economy of Nevada in seeking
additional tests.
Mr. President, when you have these explosions which leave a cavity in
the ground with all of these--cesium, strontium, et cetera--in the
cavity, it is not sealed over by a waste package. We hope and we
believe that these waste packages may be good for 10,000 years, even if
they were thrown somewhere where they had exposure to the water. We
think that the waste package itself is going to be sufficient. And,
moreover, in Yucca Mountain the waste packages will be buried some 200
meters above the water table. So it is many times better, if you are
concerned about the contamination of the ground and the water, it is
many times better to have a nuclear waste site such as Yucca Mountain
than it is to have a test site.
That is common sense--absolutely common sense--because, on the one
hand, you have the explosion, some in the water table, and hundreds of
these explosions. On the other hand, you have a Yucca Mountain which is
200 meters that is more than 600 feet above the water table in one of
the driest places on the face of the Earth.
[[Page S9213]]
So we start with that, Mr. President. That is why I say my colleagues
from Nevada have an exceedingly weak case.
On the question of the pending amendment, to say that it eviscerates
the role of EPA is just not correct. We set the standard at 100
millirems which is the same standard that you have for the
International Commission on Radiological Protection, the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is where we get the 100
millirems.
What we say is, if EPA believes that poses an unreasonable risk to
health and safety, we give to EPA the right, the duty, and the mandate
to set it at such level as they think will protect health and safety.
So, Mr. President, that argument simply does not hold water.
Moreover, I would say, Mr. President, that, again to compare it to
the nuclear test site, it is exceedingly more safe than the nuclear
test site.
We have upwards of 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in some 70
sites around the country. If we do not put away this waste in an
interim storage facility, then it will take, according to testimony
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, some $5 billion to
build what we call dry cask storage, which, according to the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia in a decision just last week, is
the responsibility of the Federal Government. So what we are dealing
with on this interim storage facility is a $5 billion bill to the
United States of America.
We are told in letters from the administration that if we build this
interim storage facility, we may have to move the waste twice.
Not so, Mr. President. The present legislation on which we will vote
very clearly states that you may not begin construction on the interim
facility until and unless the repository, that is, the underground
facility, is declared to be suitable, or I think the word is viable,
which is a defined word in the legislation. So that not until 1998,
when the nuclear waste administrator says he can and will make that
decision, may you begin construction on the interim facility. So by
that time we will know whether or not this is a suitable facility for
the repository.
Why do we say pick the facility now and begin construction? Simply
because we have about 2\1/2\ or 3 years of what we call long-lead-time
items which are necessary before you begin construction--such things as
the environmental impact statement, the design, picking the routes of
transportation. Those things can and should be done at this point so as
to save the billions of dollars that are involved.
We urge Senators to vote for the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, recognizing there is time on the other
side, I anticipate a vote on the pending amendment at the conclusion of
the Senators from Nevada speaking on this amendment, because I think
our time has just about expired.
How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Time has expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. So all Senators should be advised
that will be--I guess the Senators from Nevada can give us a better
idea, but I would imagine 15 or 20 minutes.
Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Nevada have 24 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me just make a couple of preliminary observations.
Our good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from South
Carolina, rose this morning to express his strong support for this
legislation. I say with great affection and great respect that the
irony of his position could not have been more acute. In this morning's
Energy Daily, we read that the State of South Carolina, the State that
he has so ably represented and defended since 1954, has filed suit
against the Department of Energy because they are concerned about
safety standards as it relates to the shipment of foreign nuclear fuel
into the State of South Carolina.
I guess I would have to repeat, Mr. President, an old expression that
I think would be understood down home: ``What's sauce for the goose
ought to be sauce for the gander.'' I respect and greatly admire the
Senator's concern about the health and safety of his own State. I just
wish he shared that same perspective in terms of the health and safety
of the entire Nation, because that is one of the principal objections
we have to this piece of legislation.
Let me in the time that I have try to address the issues that were so
fundamental to the debate in S. 1936, because, as my senior colleague
has pointed out, with respect to the core issues nothing has changed.
There has been some language that has been massaged, but nothing has
been changed.
Let me take my colleagues for a great leap through the bill itself.
We have expressed strong opposition, not on behalf of Nevada but on
behalf of the Nation, to a piece of legislation that would effectively
emasculate major pieces of the environmental legislation that affects
all Americans. The National Environmental Policy Act provides the
framework for making major policy decisions that affect the
environment, and nobody denies that the legislation before us, the
siting of an interim storage facility, has profound implications in
terms of its impact.
So here is what we have in the act itself under section 204. OK,
first of all, and I paraphrase, it says, ``The National Environmental
Policy Act shall apply.'' That is like saying the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights shall apply. And then it goes on to say that such
environmental impact statements shall not consider the need for interim
storage, the time of the initial availability of interim storage, any
alternatives to the storage, any alternatives to design criteria, the
environmental impacts of the storage beyond the initial term.
We are talking about something that lasts tens of thousands of years,
and they are talking about something that would be limited to the
initial term of the license, which is a matter of years.
Then they go on to deprive the court of jurisdiction to review the
environmental impact statement as it is being developed, and then goes
on to say, in what is the height of arrogance--our colleagues have
railed against the costs that have been incurred over the years in
seeking a solution to the disposition of high-level nuclear waste. Much
of those costs have been incurred as a result of unrealistic time lines
generated by the zeal of the nuclear utility industry in America. The
storage of interim waste has been for more than 30 years their Holy
Grail. That is what they want, and the only reason we are having this
debate today is because the nuclear utilities want interim storage. But
the irony and the ultimate travesty that I refer to is, after talking
about the environmental policy act, it goes on to say none of the
activities carried out pursuant to this paragraph shall delay or
otherwise affect the development or construction, licensing or
operation.
So, yes, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by way of analogy
would apply, but the amendments that all of us rely upon for our
protection, by way of analogy, would not apply here.
So far as the contention has been made that there has been an effort
to address environmental concerns, that is simply false. And I will not
take the time at this point, but we will discuss it in more detail.
The letter sent by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency makes a very compelling argument. So for the purposes of this
act, we, in effect, wipe out the National Environmental Policy Act.
Let me go on and talk about the standards because we have talked a
good bit about that.
The standards that we are concerned about are the radioactive
exposure standards. Nowhere in the world, for no other project on the
face of the Earth is a radiation standard--if I could get that chart--
no other place in the world do we have a radiation standard that
proposes 100 millirems from a single source. No place.
[[Page S9214]]
The EPA safe drinking water standard is 4; the WIPP standard is 15.
Let me refresh my colleague's memory. In this Congress, this year, our
distinguished colleague from New Mexico got up, and properly so,
expressed concern about EPA's ability to establish standards for the
WIPP facility, the repository for transuranic waste.
The National Academy of Sciences has recommended between 10 and 30
millirems of exposure. What do we have in Nevada? Mr. President, 100
millirems. That is just simply unconscionable. That is simply
unconscionable.
Oh, yes, they say, the EPA is brought back into the process. Not as
one would expect it. That is the standard unless they are able to
disprove that 100 millirems would have no adverse impact on health and
safety, another concern raised by the EPA, which makes no equivocation
at all about the fact that that presents a public health risk. Every
Member in this body, whatever his or her view is on an interim storage
facility, should be concerned as Americans about what is being done
with respect to this provision.
Moreover, the EPA is restricted and the NRC is restricted in terms of
how to apply the standards. We will talk a little bit more about that
during the course of this debate. The National Academy of Sciences has
indicated, as one example, that there are health and safety concerns
for 10,000 years and beyond. The statute we are being asked to consider
in this very amendment would limit the ability to consider this only to
the first 1,000 years. That is not the most critical time. It is after
1,000 years that the canisters are supposed to fail and then it
migrates into the underground repository itself.
I could go on and on. We have talked about the preemption. Make no
mistake, I say to my colleagues, this amendment in effect preempts the
environmental laws of America, all of these provisions here. I will not
take time to read all of them because we are under some time
constraints on this amendment. Look at them: Federal Land Policy Act,
RCRA, clean air, clean water, Superfund. None of those apply if they
are in conflict with the provisions of this act, none. This is simply
an outrage, whatever one's view is about transporting nuclear waste
across the country, and much more will be said about that later.
The fiscal impact of this has been discussed. I want to comment
briefly on this. It has been clear since the very beginning of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, that the fundamental premise of that
act, as contained in all the provisions, indicates the first and
primary responsibility from a financial point of view will be the
utilities' themselves. That is the first and foremost responsibility.
This amendment very cleverly changes that.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. BRYAN. It very cleverly changes that. Remember the premise in the
1982 Nuclear Policy Act itself was the responsibility will be that of
the utilities, in terms of the financial responsibility. Repeatedly--
over and over again.
The responsibility goes far beyond the initial licensing period. We
are talking about something that lasts for tens of thousands of years.
But this is why this is the nuclear industry bailout or relief act.
What they have done is limited the liability of the utility by saying,
until 2002, the maximum amount that can be contributed into the nuclear
waste fund, a fund that is generated by a 1 mill levy on each kilowatt
hour of energy generated, will be 1 mill.
The people who have looked at that, the General Accounting Office and
others, have concluded that the fund currently is underfunded between
$4 and $8 billion. It gets better. After the year 2002, the utilities'
liability is further limited to the amount of the annual appropriation.
So there is nothing that is being done with respect to the long-term
implications of this piece of legislation, in terms of the storage of
nuclear wastes.
Let me be clear that by the year 2033, for the utilities, nuclear
utilities that are currently licensed, those licensing periods expire.
What this means is that the American taxpayer, people who have never
received 1 kilowatt of nuclear-generated power, will pick up the
balance. Let me be clear on that. Historically, since the establishment
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it has been the financial
responsibility of the utilities to handle the storage, the financial
responsibility. This now changes dramatically and there are
limitations--the 1 mill limitation and, after the year 2002, only the
amount that is appropriated. This year, for example, that would have
been roughly one-third of a mill. The balance all shifts to the
taxpayer. So, you talk about an unfunded mandate on the American
taxpayer, this is it.
Let me respond briefly to a couple of comments that were made, and I
know our time will conclude. First of all, our friend from Louisiana
makes the point that Nevada has hosted the Nevada test site and nuclear
detonations have occurred there for many years. I hope none of us is
going to be penalized because Nevada, as part of the national defense
effort beginning during the height of the cold war in the 1950's,
agreed to accept the Nevada test site. That was part of our national
defense effort and Nevadans assumed that responsibility, and proudly
so.
Now, with respect to the amount of radioactivity generated, all the
tests conducted out there would amount to less than 1 ton. That would
be the cumulative impact of all of that radioactivity. What we are
talking about----
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. BRYAN. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. You are speaking of the radioactivity released to the
air at this point, are you not?
Mr. BRYAN. No. We are referring to the total volume of radioactivity,
underground as well.
Mr. JOHNSTON. It amounts to how much?
Mr. BRYAN. One ton.
Mr. JOHNSTON. One ton?
Mr. BRYAN. Yes.
The point I am trying to make is, by way of comparison, we are
talking about tens of thousands of metric tons, so the degree of risk
is immeasurably greater as a result.
Let me turn next to the question of the lawsuit. Much has been made
of the lawsuit. The lawsuit changes absolutely nothing, as my colleague
pointed out. In point of fact, what the lawsuit said is there is an
obligation on the part of the Department of Energy, and we look to the
provisions of the contract to determine how that liability will be
ascertained. At no time--and I emphasize--at no time was it contended
by the utilities that there would be a need to commence some type of
transportation on February 1, 1988. In point of fact, in the briefs,
the legal briefs filed by the utilities, they make it very clear that
they do not assert that there should be a mandatory injunction
requiring the transfer of anything, or the movement of anything on
January 31, 1998. What they say, and our amendment that we will offer
later indicates that, is that becomes a matter of contract
adjudication, depending upon the nature of the delay. I believe it is
fair to point out the Secretary of Energy makes that point in her
letter, that the lawsuit changes nothing. It is a smokescreen. The
utilities did not seek nor does the lawsuit decision require the
transport of anything on January 31, 1988. At most it would require an
adjustment of the fees paid by utilities into the nuclear waste fund,
to the extent that they incur additional costs to expand that storage.
I might say, parenthetically, the Senators from Nevada have
introduced legislation to that effect for the last 7 years. So the
lawsuit means absolutely nothing.
It is plain the ratepayers are not getting what they paid for. Let me
say that certainly is not the fault of the citizens of Nevada. Frankly,
it is the fault of the way the nuclear utilities themselves have
constantly tried to jam unrealistic deadlines, to make politics rather
than science the determiner of this program. The original program
suggested we should search the country, find the best site, send three
sites, after they have been studied, to the President of the United
States, and have the President make the determination. That did not
occur. Politics--politics intervened, nuclear politics. The folks in
the Northeast, and understandably, said we do not want granite in the
study, so they were taken out of the equation.
[[Page S9215]]
The folks in the Southeast, I can understand, said, ``My gosh, we
don't want salt domes.'' So what happened in 1987--and no scientist
worthy of the description of scientist would ever contend that from a
scientific point of view, forcing all of the study to occur at a single
site is the best from a scientific perspective, and the fact they have
encountered technical problems dealing with health and safety certainly
is not the fault of Nevadans.
Frankly, the decision to embark upon nuclear energy carried with it
certain risks for the utilities, and part of that risk is the financial
responsibility of dealing with the waste.
So I simply say to my colleagues that none of the provisions that
relate to the heart and core of our concerns--the National
Environmental Policy Act, the preemption provisions, the standards or
the fiscal impact for the American taxpayers--not a single provision in
this new amendment changes the impact from the debate that we had in S.
1936, and none of my colleagues should be misled as a result.
May I inquire as to how much time I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator has 5 minutes 53
seconds.
Mr. BRYAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there has been a suggestion by my friend,
the senior Senator from Louisiana, that this is a bankrupt case, the
defense of S. 1936, the opposition to S. 1936. Mr. President, the exact
opposite is true. For example, the opposition to S. 1936 is supported
by the President of the United States. He has done it vocally and in
writing. The case is supported by the Secretary of Energy. There is a
letter that will be entered into the Record where she vehemently
disagrees with not only the underlying legislation but the amendment.
No one can ever think that the Secretary of Energy would do anything to
assist this Senator from Nevada. This Senator and the Secretary of
Energy have been in a longstanding dispute over various issues, but her
letter is direct and to the point that not only is the legislation bad,
but the amendment is bad.
The Environmental Protection Agency Administrator sent a letter that
is succinct, to the point, that outlines why the legislation is bad and
why the amendment is bad.
The Council for Environmental Quality opposes this legislation. The
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is opposed to what they are trying
to do, and, as we talked about before, all environmental organizations.
Mr. President, let me say that the only case for S. 1936 is a
powerful nuclear industry. They are the only supporters of this
legislation.
The Senators from Nevada have indicated that we would not require a
rollcall vote on this amendment. We have been told that the advocates
of this amendment want a vote on it. I can only speak for this Senator,
but this amendment does not help anything. I say to all my colleagues,
it does not help anything in the underlying legislation, and it does
not hurt it. It is just as bad after you adopt it as before.
My colleagues can go ahead and vote for this if they want. It makes
absolutely no difference, because the ultimate test of this legislation
will come on final passage when we will determine whether or not the
President of the United States is going to have to oppose this
legislation by veto and whether the request, the pleas by the
President, the Secretary of Energy, the Vice President of the United
States, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council for
Environmental Quality, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and all
environmental organizations are going to land on deaf ears.
I reserve the remainder of our time on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Nevada still have 2 minutes
56 seconds. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. I reserve the 2 minutes 56 seconds to the underlying bill.
Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Can we reserve the time on the
other amendments on the bill itself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state to the Senator the time
will continue to roll unless the Senator seeks unanimous consent to
stop the time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be no
longer counted against the opponents of this amendment and that, if
there is going to be a rollcall, we have it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is fine. We would like a rollcall vote. I have
asked for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 5055. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
Gregg] is necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 12, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 256 Leg.]
YEAS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frahm
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--12
Baucus
Biden
Boxer
Bryan
Conrad
Daschle
Lieberman
Moynihan
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
NOT VOTING--2
Glenn
Gregg
The amendment (No. 5055) was agreed to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
quorum call, which I am going to suggest, and that the time not run
against either the proponents or the opponents of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I object. I ask that the time run
equally.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend the Senators who are working on
this very important legislation. They have been doing an excellent job.
I have the impression they are going to make good progress today. I
thank, again, the Nevada Senators for their reasonableness in a very
difficult situation.
The sooner we can finish this legislation, the better, so that we can
move on to very important issues that are pending, such as the
transportation appropriations and the VA/HUD appropriations bill.
Conference reports are beginning to come back now.
I thank the Democratic leader for his cooperation in bringing this
issue to this point.
____________________