[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.

                          ____________________