[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S2732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1997

 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is 
now prepared to take up the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. It is 
time that this Congress clarify its intentions for the disposal of 
spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I 
introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996, which passed 
successfully in this body last year, and it is why I am a sponsor of S. 
104 this year. We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with 
disposing of nuclear material. Congress must recognize its 
responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear disposal policy. 
With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate 
expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities.
  One major provision of this legislation directs that an interim 
storage facility be constructed at Area 25 at the Nevada Test Site and 
that the interim facility be prepared to accept materials by November 
30, 1999. The first phase of this two-phase facility will be of a 
sufficient size to accept spent fuel from commercial reactors, shut 
down reactors and the Department of Energy.
  As reported out of Committee, S. 104 includes a provision which I 
introduced. This provision clarifies Congress' intent to provide for 
the timely removal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste from the Government's national laboratories and defense programs. 
Under this provision, the Department of Energy is required to remove 
Government nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from our national 
laboratory sites in an amount equal to at least 5 percent of the total 
waste DOE accepts into the interim storage facility every year.
  In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have 
contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds 
of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent 
fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. The 
provision I have sponsored makes good on the Government's commitment to 
clean up these sites and shows a return on the taxpayer money committed 
to this disposal program.
  This provision assures that the spent fuel from the U.S. Navy 
reactors currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and 
Environmental Laboratory will begin to be sent to the interim storage 
facility beginning in 1999. This is good news for both the DOE and for 
Idaho. Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the 
agreed date of 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor 
Batt, the DOE and the Navy. The fuel that is now temporarily stored in 
Idaho will be at the designated facility designed for long term 
disposal.
  In my opinion, this legislation is important because it closes off 
the ``escape routes'' that exist in past legislation on this issue and 
have stymied the opening of a facility that actually accepts spent 
nuclear fuel and stores or disposes of it at a permanent facility. S. 
104 closes these escape routes by specifying an interim facility 
location and a date for the opening of that facility.
  Congress must own up to its responsibilities for the disposal of 
nuclear materials that it assumed through statute in 1982; a 
responsibility that 40 utilities and other organizations from 23 States 
are suing the Federal Government right now in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
to fulfill. The passage of S. 104 will take a major step in that 
direction and stem the Government's potential liability for failure to 
fulfill its contractual commitments--a potential hemorrhage of billions 
of dollars in judgments against the Department of Energy. By this 
action, spent nuclear fuel that is currently stored at nearly 100 
different sites around the country--sites that were never designed for 
long-term storage--will be move to one central location: A location 
that is specially designed for such storage.
  In the course of this debate, we will hear a lot of discussion from 
those on both sides of this issue about transportation. Those who don't 
want to address the nuclear waste issue are likely to raise the specter 
of a ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This scaremongering is simply not supported 
by the facts.
  The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of 
spent fuel in the United States, and that there has not been a single 
death or injury from the radioactive nature of the cargo. Let me add to 
these statistics by noting that in my State there have been over 600 
shipments of Navy fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive 
material. Again, there have been no injuries related to the radioactive 
nature of these shipments. This is an exemplary safety record--a 
product of the care and rigorous attention with which these materials 
are transported.
  I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of 
spent nuclear fuel disposal. But for this Congress not to address the 
problem would be irresponsible. As the legislative body that sets 
policy for the Nation, Congress cannot sit by and watch while a key 
component of the energy security of this Nation, and the source of 20 
percent of our country's electricity, nuclear power, drowns in its own 
waste.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 will do what neither the 1982 
nor the 1987 act accomplished, and that is to definitively resolve the 
question of what to do with spent nuclear fuel in a timely manner. I 
look forward to its successful passage.

                          ____________________