[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 19 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1354-S1355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  INTERIM STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, a very serious situation exists in our 
Nation that I would like to discuss with my colleagues today. It 
concerns the storage of nuclear waste that has been generated in 
conjunction with the operation of nuclear reactors that provide this 
Nation with about 22 percent of the power generation that we currently 
enjoy. Without this contribution from the nuclear industry, we would 
have to depend on some other form of generation to contribute that 22 
percent. We would probably use more coal, perhaps more natural gas. The 
potential for developing more hydro is somewhat limited, based on the 
costs and the fact that most of the potential hydro sites have already 
been developed. I happen to be chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, which has the obligation to oversee our country's 
electricity industry. It is an industry that most Americans take for 
granted. We are used to plugging in the iron, plugging in the coffee 
pot, and having them work. We do not recognize and we do not really 
reflect on what is behind it--the people, the men and women working in 
the power generating business, the business of transmitting the 
electric energy, distributing it and making sure it works.
  In any event, in connection with the tremendous dependence we have on 
nuclear energy in this country--I might add, we are the largest 
consumers of nuclear generated energy of any nation in the world--I was 
staggered to read that the Senate-White House meeting which was held 
yesterday resulted in agreement on some issues, but no agreement to 
address the question of what to do with the nuclear waste generated by 
our power reactors.
  I think a headline should have read, ``The Clinton Administration 
Simply Wants to Keep the Status Quo.'' Keeping nuclear waste in the 
neighborhoods of our country, and the consequences of that, deserve 
some examination. This examination could start in your town, in your 
State, in your neighborhood. That is where it is being stored. High-
level radioactive materials are piling up in 80 locations in 41 of our 
States. Onsite storage is filling up, and the States which control the 
ability of utilities to store nuclear waste on the reactor sites will 
have to address whether they want to increase onsite storage at the 
nuclear reactors, or whether they will give in to pressure to simply 
not allow any further storage beyond the limited amount of existing 
storage.
  Some see this as a way to shut down the nuclear industry in this 
country. By objecting to any increase in authority to store onsite, the 
reactors can be forced to shut down because there is no place to put 
the spent fuel.
  I have a chart which I am going to spend a few minutes on, because it 
shows the crucial nature of the problem. When the administration says, 
``We will just leave it where it is,'' I suggest to you, Mr. President, 
that this is an unrealistic and unworkable alternative. By 1998, 23 
reactors in 14 States will run out of storage space. What we have here 
are plants with adequate storage, and they are indicated in the light 
blue. You can see most of them are on the eastern seaboard. But in 
purple are plants requiring additional storage by the year 2010. These 
States all have plants in purple: California, Arizona, Florida, 
Georgia, North and South Carolina, and all up and down the east coast. 
These plants do not have adequate storage to hold waste within the 
areas immediately adjacent to the reactors, and are going to have to 
petition the States to increase the authorization for nuclear energy 
waste allowed to be stored at those sites. In the green are plants 
requiring additional storage by the year 2015. They are primarily on 
the eastern seaboard and the Midwestern States, such as Illinois.

  So the point of this chart is to highlight that additional nuclear 
waste storage is needed in this country now. The bill we have 
introduced in our committee, S. 104, would provide a real solution to 
this crisis that is coming down the track. It is a train wreck that is 
coming. We have this material at 80 locations in 41 States. The Federal 
Government entered into a contractual commitment with America's 
ratepayers who depend on nuclear energy and the nuclear generation 
industry. In return for over $12 billion ratepayer dollars, the 
Government committed to take this waste by the year 1998. This is less 
than 1 year away; it is about 10 months away. The Federal Government 
has no place to put this waste and will default on its contractual 
commitment in 1998, when it is obligated to take the waste.
  There has been an effort to provide this Nation with a permanent 
repository. The government has a study program under way at Yucca 
Mountain, NV. We have spent $6 billion on this effort, but that 
facility will not be ready for 15 years, at the earliest. Secretary 
O'Leary said it may be 20 years. It may be longer. But the point is, we 
are looking at somewhere in the area of 2015 or thereabouts, and where 
in the world are we going to be able to accommodate this waste? Because 
we are not going to have a permanent repository then. We may never have 
a permanent repository, and I will talk about that a little later.
  S. 104 is a bill that got 63 votes in this body last year. The bill 
would provide for construction of a temporary storage facility, either 
at the Nevada test site or another site chosen by the President and 
Congress, until such time as we have a permanent repository 
constructed.
  Why the Nevada test site? The geologists tell us it is the best site 
that has been identified for a permanent repository. Furthermore, it is 
a site where for over 50 years we have tested our nuclear weapons. It 
is a site that is monitored and secured. It is a site that is well 
known. And it is the most appropriate site that has been identified.
  Now, the bottom line with this whole issue, Mr. President, is nobody 
wants nuclear waste. But you cannot throw it up in the air. It will 
come down somewhere. So the question is, what do you do with it? Again, 
last year, 63 Members of this body indicated that they approved of the 
construction of a temporary repository at the Nevada test site because 
it would allow us to proceed with the permanent repository,

[[Page S1355]]

and when the permanent repository was done and certified and licensed, 
the waste could go in there.
  The point is, next year the Government has to take the waste or face 
liability and the damages associated with the failure to meet its 
obligation. Mr. President, this is the most important environmental 
bill before this Congress.
  This administration has said, ``Leave it where it is.'' When this 
issue was brought up at Tuesday's meeting, it is my understanding the 
Vice President said, ``Look, we're going to talk about the things we 
can agree on. We can't agree on the issue of nuclear waste.'' Whether 
that is a fair characterization, I can only depend on the news reports. 
But the administration's position seems to be to leave the nuclear 
waste where it is until we have a permanent place to put it.
  Let me tell you a little bit about the possibility of a permanent 
repository at Yucca Mountain. We do not know whether Yucca Mountain may 
ever be ready. We have spent $6 billion already. It is estimated that 
it will cost a total of $30 billion by the time we are through with it. 
The Department of Energy says it has a 50-50 chance of actually being 
licensed.
  The theory here is that the scientists have to go through this 
process to determine whether Yucca can contain nuclear waste for 
thousands of years.
  Mr. President, if I may have another 6 or 7 minutes, I would 
appreciate it, and I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the difficulty we have here with Yucca Mountain is not 
knowing whether we will ever get it licensed because it has to 
withstand a scientific analysis regarding any possible source of 
exposure--earthquake, volcanic activity, any leeching into the ground--
for approximately 10,000 years. We do not know whether science can come 
up with that kind of certification.
  But, in any event, in order to try to make this case we have to 
proceed with the tunneling, and spend the money. However, we simply do 
not know whether it will ever be a permanent repository. But the idea 
of moving this waste from 41 States, 80 sites, to a place where we have 
had extensively studied certainly seems to make sense. If Yucca 
Mountain is determined to be permanent, we will have the waste there 
and ready to put in a permanent repository. If Yucca Mountain is not 
the permanent repository site, it will be dozens of years before 
another permanent repository site can be located and studied, and a 
central interim storage facility will still be needed.
  It is my understanding that the Vice President apparently was saying 
two things. The administration no longer supports any form of 
centralized interim storage. In the meantime, we can only conclude that 
their policy is, ``Leave it where it is.'' Leave it where it is. Ignore 
the problem. Put off the decision. Act like an ostrich--put your head 
in the sand. Let nuclear waste build up in 41 States, near the homes, 
near the schools. This is the administration's irresponsible and 
dangerous policy on nuclear waste storage.
  As I said, the Federal Government has a 1998 deadline. Taxpayers have 
paid billions of dollars only to have the Vice President say, ``Leave 
it where it is.''
  I have another chart that I will refer to very briefly. These are the 
States where ratepayers have paid into the Federal Government's nuclear 
waste fund to provide for nuclear waste storage. The Federal Government 
did not hold this money in escrow. They put it in the general fund. 
They have spent it.
  The point is, there is $12 billion that has been paid in by the 
ratepayers for the Federal Government to take this waste in 1998. 
Virtually every State has bought nuclear power and paid into the fund. 
That is where the Government's contractual commitments really lay.
  Why is the administration simply saying no to any form of interim 
storage when Yucca Mountain has only a 50-50 chance of opening? Some 
who are on the fringes of the environmental movement think that this 
sort of foot dragging may help them close down the entire nuclear 
industry. Those people apparently have no responsibility for replacing 
that 22 percent of our power that we will lose. Twenty-two percent of 
our electricity, Mr. President, is generated by nuclear power. Even if 
all of the reactors shut down, we would be stuck with the utility waste 
and the defense waste still. We would not have an answer for what to do 
with it. If they shut down the industry, we still have the waste to 
dispose of.
  Mr. President, we won the cold war with the help of our nuclear 
deterrent. Now we have an obligation to clean up the mess. We can win 
the war on nuclear waste. Leaving it where it is is not an option, and 
41 States are watching us.

  In addition to the nuclear waste of our power generators, we have 
nuclear waste that resulted from nuclear weapons development. I was at 
Hanford 2 weeks ago and went through the old plants that developed the 
plutonium to make the Hiroshima bomb, and those that made advanced 
nuclear devices. One must seriously consider what those facilities 
contributed to humanity and the burden they left. It is a 
responsibility that we must bear. Nuclear weapons brought the Second 
World War to an early close. There were lives lost; there were lives 
saved. The same thing is true regarding the collapse of the Soviet 
Union.
  No matter what your opinion regarding these matters, we have a legacy 
of nuclear waste. We have to address it. The responsible way to address 
it is to meet head on the obligations we have made. Under a contractual 
commitment, we have collected $12 billion from ratepayers and are 
committed to take that waste by 1998.
  The Government is not prepared to take the waste. This case is going 
to be litigated, and it will become a full employment act for the 
lawyers beginning in 1998. We have proposed in S. 104 to address it now 
by providing for the siting of an interim storage site, in the Nevada 
desert, or somewhere else the President and Congress may choose, until 
we have a permanent repository.
  Mr. President, we have to have a temporary central storage facility 
in this country. There is absolutely no question about it. But this 
administration chooses to ignore it. They want this problem to go away. 
They do not want to address it on their watch. I suggest, Mr. 
President, that this is irresponsible. I thank the President and wish 
him a good day and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized to 
speak for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grams, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Feingold pertaining to 
the introduction of S. 322 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama.
  (The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of S. 323 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________