[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S667-S668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals 
issued a ruling that confirmed something that many of us already 
understood. The Federal Government has an obligation to provide a safe, 
centralized storage place for our Nation's spent fuel and nuclear 
waste, beginning less than 1 year from today.
  This is a commitment that Congress and the Department of Energy made 
15 years ago. We have collected $12 billion from the American 
ratepayers for this purpose. But, after spending some $6 billion, the 
Federal Government is still not prepared to deliver on its promise to 
take and safely dispose of our Nation's nuclear waste by 1998. 
Hardworking Americans have paid for this as part of their monthly 
electric bill. They simply have not gotten any results.
  So a lawsuit was filed and the court confirmed that there is, indeed, 
a legal obligation as well as a moral one. We have reached a 
crossroads. The job of fixing this program and this injustice is ours. 
The time for fixing the program is now.
  Today in this country, high-level nuclear waste and highly 
radioactive used nuclear fuel is accumulating at over 80 sites in 41 
States, including waste stored at the Department of Energy's weapon 
facilities. It is stored in populated areas near our neighbors, near 
our neighborhoods, near our schools, on the shores of our lakes and 
rivers, in the backyards of constituents young and old across this 
land. Used nuclear fuel is being stored near the east and west coasts 
where most Americans live, maybe in your town and near your 
neighborhood. Used fuel is being stored in pools that were not 
designated for long-term storage.
  Some of this fuel is already over 30 years old. Each year that goes 
by, our ability to continue storage of this used fuel at each of these 
sites in a safe and responsible way diminishes. It is irresponsible to 
let this situation continue. It is unsafe to let this dangerous 
radioactive material continue to accumulate in more than 80 sites all 
across the country, in 41 States. It is unwise to block the safe 
storage of this used fuel in a remote area away from high populations. 
It is a national problem that requires a coordinated national solution.
  Yesterday, on behalf of myself and 19 other cosponsors, I introduced 
the exact text of S. 1936 from the 104th Congress as S. 104, the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation was passed by the 
Senate last summer by a vote of 63 to 37. It sets forth a program that 
will allow the Department of Energy to meet its obligations as soon as 
humanly possible.
  S. 104 provides for an integrated system to manage used fuel for 
commercial nuclear powerplants and high-level radioactive waste from 
the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons facilities. The integrated 
system includes construction and operation of a temporary storage 
center, a safe transportation network to transfer these byproducts, and 
continuing scientific studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine 
if it is a suitable repository site. During the floor consideration of 
the bill last year, we received many constructive suggestions for 
improving that bill. The final version passed by the Senate 
incorporated most of these changes.
  The most important provisions of the bill include: First, the role of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill 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 the Environmental 
Protection Agency's radiation protection standards.
  The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA--the bill complies 
fully with NEPA by requiring two full environmental impact statements, 
one in advance of operation of the temporary storage facility and one 
in advance of repository licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. The bill provides that, where Congress has statutorily 
determined need, location, and size of the facilities, these issues 
need not be reconsidered. There is simply no rationale for requiring 
that.

  Another concern is transportation routing. The bill provides that, in 
order to ensure that spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste is 
transported safely, the Secretary of Energy will use transportation 
routes that minimize, to the maximum practical extent, transportation 
through populated and sensitive environmental areas. The language also 
requires that the Secretary develop, in consultation with the Secretary 
of Transportation, a comprehensive management plan that ensures the 
safe transportation of these materials.
  Under transportation requirements, the bill contains language 
clarifying transportation of spent fuel under this act shall be 
governed by the requirements imposed by all Federal, State and local 
governments and Indian tribes, to the same extent as any other person 
transporting hazardous materials in interstate commerce.
  With regard to the interim storage facility, in order to ensure that 
the size and scope of the interim storage facility is manageable, yet 
adequate to address the Nation's immediate spent fuel storage needs, 
the bill would limit the size of phase I of the interim storage 
facility to 15,000 metric tons of spent fuel and the size of phase II 
of the facility to 40,000 metric tons. Phase II of the facility would 
be expanded to 60,000 metric tons if the Secretary fails to meet his 
projected goal with regard to the licensing of the permanent depository 
site.
  With respect to the preemption of other laws, a provision of the bill 
would provide that if any law does not conflict with the provisions of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Atomic Energy Act, that law will 
govern. Further State and local laws are preempted only if those laws 
are inconsistent with or duplicative of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or 
the Atomic Energy Act. The language is consistent with the preemption 
authority found in the existing Hazardous Materials Transportation Act.
  Finally, the bill contains bipartisan language that was drafted to 
address this administration's objections to the

[[Page S668]]

siting of an interim facility at the Nevada test site before the 
viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain permanent repository site 
was available. The language provides construction shall not begin on an 
interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain before December 31, 1998. 
The bill provides for the delivery of an assessment of the viability of 
the Yucca Mountain site to the President and Congress, by the 
Secretary, 6 months before construction can begin on the interim 
facility.
  If, based on the information before him, the President should 
determine in his discretion that the Yucca Mountain site is not 
suitable for development as a repository, then the Secretary shall 
cease work on both the interim and permanent repository programs at the 
Yucca Mountain site. The bill further provides if the President makes 
such a determination, he shall in 18 months designate an interim 
storage site. If the President should fail to designate a site or if a 
site he has designated has not been approved by the Congress within 2 
years of his determination, the Secretary is instructed to construct an 
interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site.
  This ensures the construction of an interim storage facility will not 
occur before the President and Congress have had ample opportunity to 
review the technical assessments of the suitability of the Yucca 
Mountain site for a permanent repository and to designate an alternate 
site for interim storage. However, this provision will also ensure that 
ultimately an interim storage facility site will be chosen.
  Without this assurance, Mr. President, we leave open the possibility 
that we will find in 1998, just a year away, that we have, one, no 
interim storage; two, no permanent repository program; and three, after 
more than 15 years and the expenditure of $6 billion, we are back right 
where we started in 1982 when we passed the first version of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  During the debate that will unfold, we will undoubtedly have our 
friends from Nevada oppose the bill with all the arguments they can 
muster. That is understandable. They are merely doing what Nevadans 
have requested them to do.
  But the difficulty we have with this issue, Mr. President, is nobody 
wants nuclear waste stored in their State. But you can't make it 
disappear. It has to be stored somewhere. What better site than the 
Nevada test site, the area in the Nevada desert where we tested nuclear 
devices for nearly 50 years.
  Has any better site been identified by the scientists who have 
searched throughout the United States and even areas outside the United 
States? The answer is that there has not been any better site 
suggested.
  So I implore those who criticize how we propose to dispose of this 
obligation to consider that they, too, have an obligation to come up 
with an alternative. The reality is, there have been a number of years 
to come up with those alternatives. Nobody has come up with one. In the 
meantime, an industry that generates nearly 22 percent of the total 
energy produced in this country is finding its storage sites filled to 
the maximum. The industry ability to store spent fuel at the reactor 
sites is limited by the legal requirements of the individual States, 
and some of the antinuclear groups see this as a way to terminate the 
nuclear industry, as we know it in the United States today.
  In my opinion, those who have this objective are irresponsible, 
because they fail to tell us how we are going to generate the power 
that is currently provided by the nuclear industry in this country. Are 
we going to have more power generated by burning coal? Is it going to 
be more oil production? Is it going to be more hydroelectric 
production?
  There is a give-and-take associated with this, and as we address the 
issues of global warming and greenhouse gases, it must be recognized 
that the nuclear industry makes a positive contribution to energy 
generation in this country, as those concerns are not matters of 
significance relative to nuclear power generation.
  Again, the reality is nobody wants nuclear waste in their State, but 
it has to go somewhere. I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, my 
friends from Nevada. We have talked about this issue at length, and we 
have a simple difference of opinion. But, again, although they 
criticize storing it in their State, at the area where we have tested 
nuclear weapons for some 50 years, they really don't have a viable 
alternative either.
  Some suggest we simply leave it where it is. Leave it at the sites in 
the 41 States. Well, we can't do that, Mr. President.
  There is other technology being developed by the French and Japanese 
that reprocesses nuclear waste, recovers the plutonium, and reinjects 
it into the reactors, and reduces the proliferation threat. That is not 
a policy that is supported by this administration. Nor is it a policy 
that is supported by the Department of Energy although someday, I am 
afraid, we are going to have to look at that as a relief if we are 
unable to open a geologic repository for the spent fuel.
  But in the meantime, this material is piling up at various sites 
around the United States, and a temporary central repository that 
stores spent fuel on the surface, in special casks that are approved by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is the appropriate action to be 
taken at this time.

  As U.S. Senators, we have an obligation to take a nationwide 
perspective on a problem. We must do what is best for the country as a 
whole, and this is certainly a case in point.
  No one can continue to pretend that there is an unlimited amount of 
time to deal with this problem. The Federal Government has entered into 
a contract with the ratepayers. They collected the funds. Now they must 
act and must act to ensure there is a safe, secure and responsible 
place to put the radioactive waste, and it is an obligation that we 
have committed to fulfill.
  The court did not address the issue of remedies. The court was very 
clear that the Department of Energy has an obligation to take spent 
nuclear fuel in 1998, whether a repository is ready or not. The reality 
is a repository cannot be ready by that date. So I assume there are 
going to be a series of lawsuits filed against the Federal Government. 
That is another full employment act for the lawyers, Mr. President.
  But so far, the Department of Energy's only response to the court 
decision has been to send out a letter asking for suggestions on how it 
can meet its obligation to take spent fuel in 1998. It is clear that we 
all agree on the question. Now is the time for answers.
  We have a clear and simple choice. We can choose to have one remote, 
safe and secure temporary nuclear waste storage facility, or through 
inaction, through delay, we can face an uncertain judicial remedy which 
will almost certainly be costly, and which is unlikely to actually move 
waste out of America's backyards.
  It is not morally right to shirk our responsibility to the 
environment and the future of our children and grandchildren. This is a 
situation we have created, and it is an obligation we must fulfill. We 
cannot wait until 1998 to decide where the Department of Energy will 
store this nuclear waste.
  We have received letters from 23 Governors and attorneys general, 
including Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, 
specifically urging this Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a 
bill that will provide for interim storage at the Nevada test site.
  Congress must speak now and provide the means to build one safe 
monitored, temporary storage facility at the Nevada test site, a unique 
site so remote that the Government has used it to explode nuclear 
weapons for over 50 years, or, if that is not sufficient, another site 
designated by the President and Congress.
  The jury is in on this issue. The time is now. The Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1997 is the answer, and I urge my colleagues to join with 
me in cosponsoring this legislation and support the passage of S. 104 
in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  
                            ____________________