[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 30 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2111-S2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Senate further deliberates on the
nomination of Federico Pena to become the next Secretary of Energy, I
rise again to discuss an issue of paramount importance to our Nation's
ratepayers and taxpayers: nuclear waste storage.
While I have already discussed on this floor the long history of this
debate, I believe a brief review of this history is warranted.
Since 1982, energy consumers have been required to pay almost $13
billion into a trust fund created to facilitate the disposal of our
Nation's commercial nuclear waste.
In return for such payments, nuclear utilities and their ratepayers
were assured that the Department of Energy would begin transporting and
storing nuclear waste in a centralized Federal repository by January
31, 1998.
This deadline is less than a year away. Over $6 billion of the
ratepayer's money has been spent by the Department of Energy, with very
little progress being made by the Department in living up to the
Federal law which requires the DOE to accept commercial nuclear waste.
In fact, late last year, the DOE politically punted their problem by
notifying utilities and States that it would not meet the deadline,
despite a Federal court's ruling that it must do so or be liable for
substantial damages.
Since then, the Department has failed to set forth a single,
constructive proposal to meet its legal obligations, thereby
threatening the interests of ratepayers and ultimately the taxpayers.
Who will be most affected by the lack of DOE action? Obviously,
ratepayers come to mind. As I have stated before, our Nation's energy
customers have already paid almost $13 billion into the Nuclear Waste
Fund. At the same time, since the DOE has not met its obligations to
accept nuclear waste, utilities and ratepayers have paid and will
continue to pay for onsite storage at over 70 commercial nuclear
powerplants. In other words, ratepayers are being hit twice because the
Department of Energy has failed to meet its legal obligations to the
American people.
In addition, the Energy Department's failure to move nuclear waste
out of the States affects not just our Nation's consumers; it
compromises our taxpayers as well.
Last year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable if it
does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998. But under
current law, no one at the DOE itself will have to pay the damages--
that bill will go to the American taxpayers at an estimated cost of 40
to 80 billion taxpayer dollars. This staggering and irresponsible
potential damage liability and the DOE's reluctance to provide specific
answers to resolve this situation should be an affront to the
President, the Vice President, the Congress and more importantly, the
American taxpayer.
To make matters worse, DOE officials under the Clinton-Gore
administration have not only avoided specific responses to this fiasco,
but have openly indicated that the States--not the Department--have the
responsibility to address the problem in the absence of action by the
Federal Government. In other words, in the last hours, the DOE is
saying that it will not meet its responsibility and is tossing the ball
to the States and the ratepayers to handle the DOE's mistake.
For example, in a recent hearing before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, DOE Under Secretary Thomas Grumbly argued that
nuclear waste storage problems facing States like Minnesota are not the
Federal Government's responsibility.
Mr. President, I find that attitude completely arrogant, devoid of
the facts, and a threat to the viability of long-term energy resources
for the American public. In 1982, States, utilities and through them,
ratepayers, signed a contract with the Federal Government to dispose of
commercial nuclear waste, a contract upheld by the courts last year.
With that understanding, States planned for limited onsite temporary
storage capacity, relying upon the Federal Government's fulfillment of
its contractual obligation.
Yet, as the years passed, it became apparent that the Federal
Government would not keep its word, prompting threats of potential
energy crises in States with limited storage space.
For example, the depletion of storage space in my home State of
Minnesota will mean that one of our utilities will lose its operating
capacity by 2002 if the Federal Government does not act soon. This
plainly means that consumers in Minnesota would not only lose 30
percent of their energy resources but would also have to pay higher
energy prices--estimated as much as 17 percent more--as a result of
Federal inaction.
Therefore, ratepayers will not get hit just once or twice, but
potentially three times, if a resolution is not found on a national
level.
The crisis facing both our ratepayers and taxpayers is simply
unacceptable. The American people do not deserve excuses and inaction;
they need real answers from the Clinton-Gore administration. They need
leadership on this issue--not a crass political debate arising out of
Presidential politics.
With that in mind, I took the opportunity to ask Secretary-designate
Federico Pena of his specific and definitive views to resolve this
issue.
Since I believe the American people deserve answers from their
leaders, I sent a letter to Mr. Pena asking for a detailed response
outlining the specific steps he would urge to meet the January 31,
1998, deadline.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks an exchange of letters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAMS. After this exchange of letters, I still felt troubled by
Mr. Pena's inability to provide specific answers about how he and the
Clinton-Gore administration intend to resolve our Nation's nuclear
waste storage problem.
Because I have not received a sufficient response to date, I objected
to an effort to expedite full consideration of Mr. Pena's nomination
late last week.
Since that time, however, I had a telephone conversation with the
Secretary-designate over the nuclear waste issue. While I am still
concerned with his continued lack of specific answers, I was pleased to
hear Mr. Pena agree with me and the Federal courts that any resolution
of this issue ultimately involves Federal responsibility. Contradicting
what DOE Under Secretary Grumbly stated before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee
[[Page S2112]]
last month, Mr. Pena provided verbal assurances of his commitment that
our nuclear waste storage situation is a Federal problem worthy of a
Federal solution. But what that means is taxpayers will still be asked
to pay extra for the DOE's failure to do its job, and it creates the
possibility of taxpayer liability high enough to make the public
bailout of the savings and loan collapse seem small in comparison.
While I am not completely satisfied with Mr. Pena's overall
incomplete response to this quickly approaching crisis and will vote
against his nomination based on his inability to provide specific
answers, I will not object to moving his nomination forward for the
sake of advancing this debate.
For this reason, I hope that as the new DOE Secretary, Mr. Pena will
play an active role in pulling the administration's head out of the
sand and becoming a constructive player in this debate.
Specifically, it is my hope that Mr. Pena will show the necessary
leadership and push the administration to support the common-sense
solution crafted by Senate Energy Chairman Frank Murkowski, Senator
Larry Craig and myself. We will mark up this bill in the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee tomorrow, and I believe the chairman will
deliver a bipartisan resolution.
With the January 31, 1998 deadline fast approaching, the
administration and Congress owe the States, ratepayers, and the
taxpayers nothing less than the assurance that promises made by the
Federal Government will be promises kept.
Exhibit 1
Washington, DC, March 4, 1997.
Mr. Federico Pena,
Secretary-designate, Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Pena. As the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee further deliberates on your nomination as Secretary
of the Department of Energy (DOE), I'm writing to solicit
your views on recent comments made concerning our nation's
failed commercial nuclear waste disposal program.
As you know, the DOE has announced that it will be unable
to meet its legal deadline of January 31, 1998 to begin
accepting commercial nuclear waste despite a mandate by a
federal court and the collection of over $12 billion in
ratepayer's funds. As a result of this failure, the Court of
Appeals will decide the appropriate amount of liability owed
by the DOE to certain utilities, possibly putting taxpayers
at risk because of the Department's lack of measurable
action. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to
collect and transport foreign-generated spent fuel for
interim storage without any apparent technical or
environmental risks.
In light of these activities, it was no surprise that
former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary recently contradicted the
Clinton Administration's longstanding objection to resolving
the centralized interim-storage impasse for our ratepayers
and, ultimately, our taxpayers. Her comments on the need to
move forward with a temporary waste storage site upon
completion of the viability assessment at Yucca Mountain
reflect the bipartisan, common-sense reforms contained in S.
104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Unfortunately, the
Clinton Administration has ignored this reality by failing to
become a constructive player in this process.
Although I am disappointed that Mrs. O'Leary's comments
came after her tenure as Secretary, I applaud her courage in
expressing her views honestly and thoroughly. I strongly
believe that the next DOE Secretary must provide the
committed leadership necessary to resolve this critical
situation while in office. With this in mind, I want to know
your specific thoughts on Mrs. O'Leary's comments that the
DOE should move forward on a temporary nuclear waste storage
site next year at Yucca Mountain if a viability assessment is
completed at the permanent site. If you disagree with Mrs.
O'Leary, I want to know what specific alternatives you would
propose to meet the federal government's legal obligation to
accept nuclear waste by January 31, 1998.
For too long, our nation's ratepayers and taxpayers have
been held hostage to what has become a political debate. They
deserve better and, more importantly, deserve an immediate
solution to this issue. For that reason, I expect a specific,
constructive response to my questions before the Senate votes
to confirm your nomination.
Sincerely,
Rod Grams,
U.S. Senator.
____
March 5, 1997.
Hon. Rod Grams,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grams: Thank you for your letter of March 4,
1997 concerning the Department of Energy's civilian nuclear
waste disposal program and the comments made recently by
former Secretary Hazel O'Leary. I have not spoken with
Secretary O'Leary about her remarks and, therefore, am not in
a position to comment on them.
As I stated when I appeared before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, I am committed to working with the
Committee and the Congress toward resolving the complex and
important issue of nuclear waste storage and disposal in a
timely and sensible manner, consistent with the President's
policy, which is based upon sound science and the protection
of public health, safety, and the environment.
I am very cognizant of the Department's contractual
obligation with the utilities concerning the disposal of
commercial spent fuel, and, after confirmation, I also expect
to meet with representatives of the nuclear industry and
other stakeholders to discuss the Department's response to
the recent court decision and the consequences of the delay
in meeting that contractual obligation.
As Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles emphasized in his February
27 letter to Chairman Murkowski, the Administration believes
that the Federal government's long-standing commitment to
permanent, geologic disposal should remain the basic goal of
high-level radioactive waste policy. Accordingly, the
Administration believes that a decision on the siting of an
interim storage facility should be based on objective,
science-based criteria and should be informed by the
viability assessment of Yucca Mountain, expected in 1998.
Therefore, as the President has stated, he would veto any
legislation that would designate an interim storage facility
at a specific site before the viability of the Yucca Mountain
site has been determined.
In conclusion, I want to strongly emphasize again that I am
committed to working with you and other members of the
Committee and the Congress on these difficult issues.
Sincerely,
Federico Pena.
____
Washington, DC, March 5, 1997.
Mr. Federico Pena,
Secretary-designate, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Pena: I received your letter, dated today, in
response to my most recent questions on our nation's nuclear
waste policy. Although I appreciate the timeliness of your
response, I am still concerned about the absence of specific
proposals from you on how best to resolve this important
issue.
In your letter, you wrote that the Clinton Administration
``believes that a decision on the siting of a storage
facility should be based on objective, science-based criteria
and should be informed by the viability assessment of Yucca
Mountain, expected in 1998.'' Frankly, this response states
nothing more than the position you have taken in the past,
leaving questions about whether the viability study can be
completed in time for the DOE to realistically accept waste
by the legal deadline on January, 31, 1998 and what can be
done to meet the deadline if the permanent site at Yucca
Mountain is not determined to be viable.
I certainly hope you can understand my concerns, given that
you yourself have publicly admitted that following this track
would make it impossible for the DOE to meet the January 31,
1998 deadline.
More importantly, you did not answer my central question
regarding what specific, constructive alternatives you would
propose in order for the DOE to begin accepting waste from
states by January 31, 1998, as outlined in statute and
ordered by the courts.
With that in mind, I would again request a specific
response from you--prior to the Senate vote on your
confirmation--to the following question: given that the
current Administration position would result in the failure
of the DOE to accept waste from states by January 31, 1998,
what specific, constructive alternatives would you propose to
guarantee that the DOE will meet this legal, court-imposed
deadline?
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Rod Grams,
U.S. Senator.
____
March 6, 1997.
Hon. Rod Grams,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grams: Your letter of March 5, 1997 asks me to
outline the specific, constructive steps that may be taken to
guarantee the Department of Energy will meet its contractual
commitments to begin taking nuclear waste discharged from
civilian nuclear reactors on January 31, 1998.
Let me say again that I am committed to carrying out a
responsible strategy for disposing of nuclear waste. I will
work with you and your colleagues toward that end, consistent
with sound science and the protection of public health,
safety, and the environment. I cannot, however, outline for
you specific steps for meeting the January 31, 1998 date. The
Department of Energy has indicated to the court and in
responses to the Congress that there is no set of actions or
activities that could be taken under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act to enable the Department to begin receiving spent fuel at
an interim storage facility or a repository on that date. The
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has itself
recognized that compliance with the January 31, 1998 date is
not possible under the law or even under the Committee's bill
reported in the last Congress.
In recognition of this state of affairs, I have indicated
that following confirmation I intend to meet with
representatives of the nuclear utility industry and other
stakeholders to address the consequences of delay in
[[Page S2113]]
DOE's meeting its contractual obligations and the
Department's response to the recent court action.
Again, I wish to emphasize my pledge to work with the
Congress in addressing this matter, consistent with the
President's policy.
Sincerely,
Federico Pena.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________