[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.

                          ____________________