[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 39 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2781-S2786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS--MOTION TO PROCEED
The Senate continued with the consideration of the motion to proceed.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when it comes to establishing national
priorities--and I know what our President is doing in the area that I
am about to discuss now--it is a great frustration to many States
across our Nation because this President refuses--I repeat, refuses--to
take a firm position and establish as a national priority in this
country the appropriate handling of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
nuclear waste in a way that is acceptable to the American people and
commensurate with the public law.
So what I am about to speak to is a piece of Senate legislation that
I and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee
introduced on this floor last year, and that we passed last year in the
U.S. Senate with 63 votes--63 bipartisan voices that said that this
administration was wrong with their policy, and wrong with their
priorities when it came to honoring public law and the 42 States that
felt it necessary that this President honor public law. I am talking
about the expeditious and timely management of high-level nuclear waste
and spent nuclear fuel.
For all the right reasons, our Nation has spent a long time
generating radioactive materials--nearly five decades. Most of this
material is the byproduct of two principal activities: National defense
operations, and commercial nuclear power plants. While it was our
national policy for well over five decades that the Federal Government
have oversight and primacy in the area of management and control of
nuclear materials, it is no longer, tragically enough, a high-level
policy of this country that is discernible by administrative position
and by the clearness of administrative leadership. That is why we are
here today on the floor of the U.S. Senate debating a timely action
that this country must take to be responsible for the five decades of
activity in the generation of high-level radioactive waste.
What I am talking about clearly is a national concern. To ignore this
responsibility would be unwise, irresponsible, and in some instances,
with regard to taking timely action, unsafe.
I am pleased now to rise in support of Senate bill 104, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1997. As I mentioned, last year I and the Senator
from Alaska were here on the floor with the Senators from Nevada
debating a similar bill, although this year we have changed the bill
some by actions in the committee itself and by possible amendments that
will be made here on the floor during the course of the debate and the
final vote on this legislation.
What we are talking about is the timely storage and disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from our Nation's defense
program and from, of course, the commercial nuclear power plants.
Senate bill 104 creates an integrated system that will ensure
construction of an interim storage facility and permanent repository to
manage spent fuel and high-level waste that is currently stored in over
80 sites in 41 States across this country.
I have in the backdrop a map of our country that demonstrates the
locations of reactors and storage sites, 80 sites in 41 States. Yet our
administration basically has had no policy for nearly two decades on
this issue.
We spoke as a Congress and we spoke as a people in 1982: That there
needed to be a national policy and a national program. The legislation
that we have before us, in my opinion, demonstrates that kind of
critical need, and the need also to operate and respond in a timely
fashion.
Transferring nuclear waste from the many defense and commercial
nuclear sites to a single Federal facility beginning in 1998 was the
intent of the Congress and the President of the United States when the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed in 1982.
It became law. It was signed by the President. It was a national
commitment. It was this Nation speaking to the need to handle the kind
of waste that I am talking about and to do so in a safe and responsible
fashion.
Unbelievably, we are less than one year away--just 9 months--from the
date when the Department of Energy is obligated by the law that was
passed in 1982 and is obligated under contract, in response to the law
signed and honored by our Government, to accept the waste. Now we have
to come to the floor in the 11th hour and plead with this
administration to come with us in the shaping of national policy to
deal with this issue. Just last year the U.S. Court of Appeals
reaffirmed the Federal obligation.
The Nevada test site was selected in the early 1970's as one of the
sites under consideration for a geologic repository. This site has been
under study for now over two decades by scientists and engineers. Here
is a photograph of the Nevada test site where the interim storage
facility would be located. Scientists and engineers at Yucca Mountain
near this site where a permanent geologic repository for these high-
level wastes would be placed have conducted the most thorough and
comprehensive geological survey ever undertaken on any piece of
property on the face of the Earth.
Let me repeat that claim because I believe it to be valid. The site
that we are looking at, the Yucca Mountain deep geologic repository,
has been studied more thoroughly, more comprehensively, both from a
geologic point of view, from a seismic point of view, and from the
overall need to meet the certification process for it to be a
permanent, safe, high-level waste repository--that site has been more
comprehensively studied than any piece of real estate on the face of
the Earth. During all of this time and all of the studies, nothing has
been discovered which would indicate that this site is unsuitable for
use as a repository.
Because of the endless bureaucratic delays that have plagued the
program, the Federal Government now says it will not have a repository
operating until the year 2010 at the earliest. Remember, this was a
Federal Government that in 1982 signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
committing by contract to take the waste by 1998, 9 months from now.
Yet this administration and their representatives at the Department of
Energy shrugged their shoulders and said, ``Well, gee, the year 2010
will have to do because we just can't get there.'' Yet the courts last
year said ``Wrong. Foul ball. Go back to home plate. You have to abide
by the law.'' And the Department of Energy said, ``Yes. You are right.
We do have to do that. We recognized that.''
This is 12 years after the Federal Government is contractually
obligated to take title to and remove spent fuel from civilian power
plants. Electric consumers and taxpayers have committed approximately
$12 billion solely to study, test and build a radioactive waste
management system. So when the Federal Government made its obligation
in 1982 to the taxpayer, but most importantly the ratepayer of the
utilities that were generating electricity through nuclear power, and
the Government owed this commitment by paying out money to build the
facility, to do the siting, to do the studies, to do all of the test
work and to have a facility ready to operate and receive by 1998. That
was a $12 billion commitment and $4.5 billion of that money has already
been spent. This chart will give you an idea of where the moneys come
from.
So, in other words, these were the folks that made the commitments.
[[Page S2782]]
These were the folks that signed the contracts. These were the folks
that believed that the Federal Government was an honorable agent that
would honor those contracts. And the courts just this past year said,
``You are right. The Federal Government has to do it.'' And the
administration says, ``Well, we can't do it. In fact, we probably won't
be able to do it until 2010, or sometime beyond.''
We enjoy the benefits of having the world's most reliable and
powerful electricity supplies to drive our economy. In supplying more
than 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, nuclear energy is part of
the foundation of our Nation's high standard of living and economic
growth. Twenty percent of the lights in our country, of the industry in
our country, of the economy of our country, is fueled by nuclear power
plants.
Mr. President, here is the thing that frustrates me most. I am going
to quote from the President of the United States, this President. This
is the President who doesn't have any idea how he will honor the
commitment that the courts said just this last year he has to honor.
This is the President who, in my opinion, has established the most
antinuclear policy and attitude of any President since Harry Truman.
Yet, this President this year in his fiscal 1998 budget request for the
Department of Energy includes the following statement.
He says, or the Department of Energy says, this President's
Department of Energy:
[Nuclear power] plants represent a $200 billion investment
by electric ratepayers and provide reliable baseload power
without emitting harmful pollutants such as those associated
with global climate change.
In other words, it is this President who recognizes that nuclear
power or electrical power generated by nuclear energy is the safest,
the cleanest, and provides a huge investment of $200 billion. Yet, this
is the President who shrugs his shoulders and says, ``But we don't know
what to do with the waste. We do not have a policy. We cannot react.''
I agree with the statement that I just quoted from the Department of
Energy's fiscal year 1998 budget. Nuclear power is a major generator.
Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is clean. Responsible management
and disposal of spent fuel from these plants is a vital component of
the energy security of this country and is, in my opinion, the No. 1
environmental issue that we face. Managing the waste stream safely and
soundly is the No. 1 environmental issue in 41 States at 81 sites
across this country.
S. 104 authorizes construction of an interim storage facility on the
Nevada test site near Yucca Mountain. This facility will be constructed
in full compliance with the regulations of, and will be licensed by,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is an interesting drawing we have
up here on this chart that shows how simple the technology to store
this fuel is, but what is important to understand is that you do it by
the rules and you do it by the science, the technology, and the
engineering of the day.
The interim storage capacity provided for in the legislation would
stem the Government's looming financial liability in its current
lawsuit with utilities. In other words, I have just entered into a new
dimension in this battle that we now have going over--how to be
responsible and where to be responsible and when to be responsible as
it relates to the appropriate management of spent fuel and high-level
nuclear waste.
On January 31 of this year, 46 State agencies and 36 utility
companies filed suit against the Department of Energy in Federal court.
The lawsuit asks the court to order immediate action by the Department
of Energy to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 by
beginning to remove spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites by January
31, 1998, as specified under the act. The Department of Energy not only
has failed to take any steps to fulfill this obligation, as I have
spoken to earlier, but, rather, it has acknowledged it will not begin
waste acceptance in 1998 and has solicited suggestions on what it might
do in light of this failure.
Let me repeat. Here is the Department of Energy that has basically
said: We cannot do it, so tell us how to do it. Give us some ideas of
how we, as Government, can honor the commitment that we have made under
the law.
Let me suggest to our Secretary of Energy and to the President that
the way you honor the commitment is S. 104. Don't fight the Congress.
Don't fight a majority bipartisan effort here. Come with us, work with
us in solving this problem as S. 104 provides. Not only does it
recognize the commitment by law, but it recognizes the need to respond
in a timely fashion.
Just last week our new Secretary of Energy, Federico Pena, met with
nuclear energy executives. Despite the potential for billions of
dollars of liability judgments against his Department, Secretary Pena
and the administration again failed to offer any concrete solution to
this issue. Why did they fail to offer it? Because they do not want to
recognize the need for S. 104. They do not want to recognize the
commitment they have made, or at least are responsible for under the
law.
In the course of this debate, you will hear and you have already
heard the two Senators from the State of Nevada talk about the issue of
transportation. Our opponents will raise the specter of a mobile
Chernobyl. This fear-mongering is simply not supported by facts.
Let me digress here to talk about the safety of transportation for a
moment. In doing so, let me make this statement. I have had the
privilege over the course of my time in service in the U.S. Congress
from the State of Idaho to deal with a lot of issues, all of them or
most all of them were political, but 99 percent of them are not just
political. Some of them deal with economics. Some of them had differing
opinions as to the engineering or the science or the technology
involved in a given issue. But never have I dealt with an issue that,
in my opinion, is exclusively political--not scientific, not
engineering, not mechanical in any way. Because when it comes to the
management of nuclear waste, none of those charges have any base to
them. The only dynamics in this debate is politics. Where do you want
to put the waste? Because, once that decision is made, our science, our
engineering, and our technology knows without question that it can be
effectively and responsibly stored and safely stored in an
environmentally sound way.
Those decisions were made--that it be a deep geologic repository. So,
when it comes to the movement of that waste to that repository, the
same argument holds true. The fact is, there have been over 2,500
commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States in the
timeframe that I have talked about; the same timeframe we have dealt
with the management and the handling of nuclear waste. There has not
been a single death or injury from the radioactive nature of the cargo.
Let me repeat. There has never been a single death or injury from the
radioactive nature of the cargo.
What am I saying when I say that? I am saying that the integrity of
the shipment vessel in which high-level nuclear waste or nuclear fuel
was transported was never breached, even though there were some
accidents. There is no other product or waste material transportation
in our country today that can make that claim--none, except nuclear
waste. It has been transported more safely with no escape of
radioactivity, and therefore no human injury resulting from it, and
transported more safely than any other waste, toxic substance, or
human-harming substance in the United States. That is a unique claim.
The reason that claim can be made was the understanding at the front
end of the need to transport this waste in a safe manner and the
importance of the vessel in which it was transported in accomplishing
this.
Let me add to these national statistics by describing the experience
of my State, because my State receives high-level nuclear waste
shipments. There have been over 600 shipments of Navy fuel and over
4,000 other shipments of radioactive material to my State. I will say
that while some Idahoans resist and speak out about these shipments,
none of them have been harmed. There has never been a spill. There has
never been an accident that resulted in the radioactivity of the cargo
being released. There have never been--let me repeat once more, for the
record--injuries related to the radioactive nature of shipments.
[[Page S2783]]
Why? Why the great record? Well, largely because of what I just said,
because there was rigorous attention paid in the very early days,
recognizing the need for safe transportation of these materials. In
fact, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``The safety
record for spent fuel shipments in the United States and in other
industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments
completed over the last 30 years, none have resulted in an identifiable
injury through a release of radioactive material.''
An example of this care and handling is the testing sequence to which
spent fuel packages must be subjected. Once again, we have talked about
the routes. You have seen the picture. Here are some examples of the
kind of testing that has gone on to create the integrity of the
shipping vessel that allows me to make the claims on the floor of the
U.S. Senate that I have just made. For a spent fuel package design to
receive a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it must be
demonstrated that the cask can survive the following tests, in
sequence: A 30-foot drop onto an unyielding surface. In other words, I
am talking about a concrete slab; then, a shorter drop onto a vertical
steel punch bar. In other words, dropping a vessel onto a steel spike,
if you will, of the size that could fully penetrate the vessel; that it
be engulfed in fire for 30 minutes; finally, submerged in 3 feet of
water; and separately, that the cask must not leak for 1 hour under 200
meters of water. That is the rigorousness of the testing and that is
why, of course, I can make the claims I made, that no spills have
resulted.
To further ensure that this care and caution be continued, we have
supported an amendment offered in the committee by our colleague from
Oregon, Senator Wyden. All shipments pursuant to S. 104 will be
conducted in full compliance with all relevant Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and Department of Transportation regulations, in addition to
complying with the Department of Energy's requirements for advance
notification and emergency response.
My colleagues from Nevada have been very vocal on this issue of
transportation. I would like to quote from a letter dated March 11,
1997, sent by the Western Governors' Association, of which Nevada is a
member. This letter went to Senator Wyden, giving the Western
Governors' Association response to Senator Wyden's transportation
amendment that our committee accepted, that is now within S. 104. The
letter reads:
[Y]our transportation amendments to S. 104, dated March 11,
are generally consistent with the WGA's adopted policies for
the safe and uneventful transport of radioactive waste
through western States.
We feel that the committee action has strengthened the already
substantial transportation safeguards of S. 104, as introduced.
The point of this whole comment was that not only had we made
significant strides to ensure questions about transportation, because
the vessel itself is not of issue, in my opinion, nor are there
scientists or engineers that would argue it.
The other question happens to deal with the general nature of
exposure, and what is 100 millirems. We are going to talk about this in
the debate. Already the Senators from Nevada have had this issue on the
charts before us. I think it is important that we set radiation
exposure levels in context, so that we can compare them to exposures
that we assume routinely in our day-to-day living.
Mr. President, it is something that not all of us recognize or
understand, but the fact is that we receive radiation by just being
alive under natural environments, whether it is your relationship in
altitude and exposure to the Sun or whether it is the fact that you are
encased in granite or marble. For example, we receive 80 millirems
dosage on an annual basis by merely serving in the U.S. Senate. Why?
Because of the general radioactive nature of granite and marble. That
is the way our world is made up.
In your State of Colorado, and in your city of Denver, residents
receive approximately a 53-millirem annual dose because you live in a
mile-high city where the air is thinner and your exposure to solar
radiation is simply higher. It is the character of the environment we
live in.
When I hear suggestions that we set exposure levels at 4 millirems
for groundwater or setting a level of 15 millirems, I am reminded of
the quote I heard when this debate occurred earlier. It talked about
the differences of exposure in, again, Denver--and I do not know why
they like to use Denver, CO, as an example--the difference between 4
millirems exposure for groundwater and setting it at 15 millirems is a
difference of standing up or sitting down in Denver, CO, as it relates
to your relative exposure to radiation and the Sun. I doubt that
anybody in the State of Colorado, or in the city of Denver, thinks that
they are more exposed standing or less exposed seated, to the natural
environmental radiation that occurs there and has always occurred there
because of the altitude and the atmosphere.
What I am trying to make here is a point that if you want to stand on
the floor of the U.S. Senate and debate millirems in the 15 or the 4
context, you do not have a point. It cannot be made. It does not make
sense, because you receive them in the natural environment of Denver or
you receive them in the natural environment by being encased in a
building of sandstone and marble and granite right here in the U.S.
Senate. That is the reality of what we have. That is the situation that
we face.
Support of S. 104 is coming from all quarters, including State and
local government officials, public utility commissioners, newspapers,
editorial boards, labor unions, chambers of commerce, national trade
associations, the electric utilities, just to name a few. A similar
measure, as I have mentioned, S. 1936, passed this body last year with
strong bipartisan support.
I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of
spent nuclear fuel disposal. For this Congress not to address this
problem, in my opinion, would just be irresponsible. We cannot let the
source of 20 percent of our country's electricity drown in waste, nor
can we allow our Government to default on contractual obligations that
it has made. This Government's default would leave the taxpayers of
this country vulnerable to a financial liability as high as $80
billion.
As I close, let me use these examples. The minority leader and I were
just discussing budgets and who is on first and who is on second and
who proposed and who has not proposed. The bottom line is we are all
concerned about the budget and, most importantly, we are all concerned
about getting it to balance in a responsible fashion and not doing so
with major tax increases.
Yet, if this Government walks away from its commitment under the law,
it may well be placing itself in a liability environment that could
equal upwards of $80 billion. How does that translate? That translates
to an additional $1,300 per family in the United States. On the dollar
and cents costs, let me relate them to you as I understand them.
If we do not assume the responsibility and deal in a timely fashion,
the cost of storage of spent fuel, because the courts have said to the
Federal Government, ``You will take charge of it. It will become your
obligation,'' it will start costing the taxpayers money. That cost
could go as high as $19.6 billion. Return of nuclear waste fees could
be $8.5 billion. Interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 billion,
depending on the interest rates used, and consequential damage for
shutdown of potential nuclear powerplants that would lose their storage
capability and would not be allowed to license new storage capability
could be upwards of $24 billion.
When the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate met with the
President and the Vice President some weeks ago, our leader, Trent
Lott, said to the President, ``It is our priority to deal with the
nuclear waste issue.'' The President deferred to Al Gore and said, ``It
is not ours,'' and the Vice President largely said, ``Leave it where it
is until the year 2010.''
Eighty billion dollars and 2010? Mr. President, Mr. Vice President,
wake up. Not only will the taxpayers not allow that, but the politics
of this country will not tolerate that. We must deal with this issue,
and S. 104 is clearly a way of dealing with it.
The United States has benefited from the many uses of nuclear
materials which have deterred a global conflict.
[[Page S2784]]
Our nuclear fuels now generate electricity in a clean, non-air-
polluting way. Our generation now must take the responsibility that it
has to properly manage spent nuclear fuels for the defense program of
our country and for the 110 commercial powerplants that it obligated
itself to do so in 1982.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, the legislation that we are now
asking for the right to proceed with on the floor and deal with in a
timely fashion, S. 104, is the proper way to move. It allows our
citizens the comfort of knowing that our Government has acted
responsibly to assure environmentally safe long-term storage and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive material. I
hope that tomorrow evening, when we vote cloture that would give the
Senate the right to proceed to debate on the legislation, that we can
have the kind of overwhelming, bipartisan support of the type that we
have received in the past.
Mr. President, I believe we will get that support. I believe it
because it is now time to deal with this issue. I hope that during the
course of the debate on the floor of the Senate and action that will
follow in the House, that somehow and in some way we can catch the
attention of this administration, to do what they are legally and
contractually obligated to do, so that we can stand bipartisan,
shoulder to shoulder, in a national policy that deals with this issue
in a way that we can all be proud of. Then we can say to our fellow
citizens, ``Yes, when the Government makes a commitment, when the
Government signs a contract, when the Government obligates resources
and taxes it citizenry for a dedicated cause, that cause can be
responded to in a timely fashion.'' S. 104 allows us to do so, and I
hope that by tomorrow evening we will have the support to vote cloture.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask the Chair, after we finish
debate on this matter today, it is my understanding that, again, this
matter will be taken up at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. And there will be a vote at 5:30 or 5:15?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe it is scheduled for 5:15.
Mr. REID. And the debate between 2:30 and 5:15 is equally divided
between the----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is equally divided between 2:15 and 5:15.
Mr. REID. I recognize that my friend from Minnesota has been on the
floor, and I will just take a few minutes because there are many things
we can talk about during the time tomorrow. I will just say, so I do
not have to answer today everything that my friend from Idaho
propounded, that the $80 billion figure that my friend has brought up
is, I suggest, maybe not modern math. It simply does not make sense. If
in fact we are talking about saving money, the thing to do would be to
leave it where it is. We would save not only the cost of the site of
construction at Yucca Mountain and the proposed interim storage site of
billions of dollars, maybe as much as $10 billion, but we would also
not have the American public frightened and concerned about the
transportation of nuclear waste. We will talk about that more tomorrow.
I will also say, tomorrow we will discuss in some detail the argument
that because there has been nuclear testing there, we should also have
nuclear waste; we will establish that is a clearly erroneous and
fallacious reason.
Also, we will spend time tomorrow indicating how this legislation
would wipe out environmental laws in this country, and that is the
reason all environmental organizations in this country vehemently
oppose this legislation.
Mr. President, there is a lot that we need to talk about with this
legislation. As indicated, however, my friend from Minnesota has been
waiting all afternoon. My friend from Idaho, my friend from Alaska and
the two Senators from Nevada will discuss this in more detail tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not under controlled time.
Mr. GRAMS. Before I begin, I yield a few moments to the Senator from
Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristine
Svinicki, a legislative fellow who works with my office, be granted the
privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 104.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 104,
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This much-needed legislation, as
has been outlined today, will help resolve our Nation's nuclear waste
storage crisis, help restore the commitments to our Nation's
ratepayers, and ultimately to save taxpayer dollars from the Department
of Energy's failed policies of the past.
Again, I applaud the majority leader and Energy and Natural Resources
Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig of Idaho, for their leadership in
moving this bill.
Again, bottom line, our Nation cannot afford further delay, and the
time to act on this commonsense legislation is now. But for the Senate
to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation, I believe a brief
summary of its history is in order. Since 1982, utility ratepayers have
been required to pay the Federal Government nearly $13 billion of their
hard-earned money in exchange for the promise that the Department of
Energy would transport and store commercially generated nuclear waste
in a centralized facility by January 31, 1998. However, with this
deadline less than a year away and with over $6 billion already spent
by the Department of Energy, there has been little progress toward
keeping this 15-year-old promise of establishing a centralized Federal
storage facility. In fact, though there has been measurable progress at
the Yucca Mountain, NV, facility, a permanent repository will not be
completed until well into the next century. As of today, nuclear waste
is piling up at more than 80 sites due to the DOE's failure to live up
to is commitment.
Clearly, if the DOE is to meet the January 31, 1998 deadline, it must
begin accepting nuclear waste at an interim storage facility--that,
however, has not yet happened. In fact, the DOE recently notified
States and utilities that it would not accept their commercial nuclear
waste despite the law and the Federal court's effort to enforce it.
Meanwhile, utility ratepayers are still being required to pay for a
mismanaged program. In fact, over $630 million from the ratepayers go
into the nuclear waste fund each year--without any tangible benefits or
results to show for them.
Our Nation's utility consumers and their pocketbooks aren't just hit
once, either. Because of the DOE's failure to act, ratepayers are
currently being forced to pay their hard-earned dollars to store waste
on-site at commercial utility plants--a burden that would not be
necessary had the Energy Department lived up to its legal obligation.
Take, for example, the situation facing ratepayers in my home State of
Minnesota. Since 1982, Minnesota's nuclear energy consumers have paid
over $250 million into the nuclear waste fund believing that the
Federal Government would fulfill its obligation to transport nuclear
waste out of Minnesota. But as time went on and the DOE continued to
ignore their responsibilities, utilities in Minnesota and around the
country were forced to temporarily store their waste within the
confines of their own facilities. When it became clear to many
utilities that storage space was running out and the Department of
Energy would not accept waste by the established deadline, utilities
then had to go to their States to ask for additional on-site storage or
else be forced to shutdown their operations.
For example, ratepayers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin were forced to pay for on-site storage in cooling pools at
Prairie Island in southeastern Minnesota. In 1994, with storage space
running out, the Minnesota Legislature--after a bruising battle--voted
to allow for limited on-site dry-cask storage until the year 2004.
Mr. President, the cost associated with this on-site storage is
staggering.
[[Page S2785]]
Ratepayers in the Midwestern service area alone have paid over $25
million in storage costs and will pay an estimated $100 million more by
the year 2015, and that is in addition to the required payments to the
Federal Government.
To make matters even worse, storage space will run out at Prairie
Island just after the turn of the century, forcing the plant to close
unless the State legislature once again makes up for the DOE's
inaction. This will threaten over 30 percent of Minnesota's overall
energy resources and will likely lead to even higher costs for
Minnesota's ratepayers.
In fact, the Minnesota Department of Public Service estimates that
the increase in costs could reach as high as 17 percent, forcing
ratepayers to eventually pay three times: once to the nuclear waste
fund, again for onsite storage, and yet again for increased energy
costs.
And Minnesota is not alone in facing this unacceptable situation.
Thirty-six other States across the Nation are facing similar
circumstances of either shutting down and losing their energy-
generating capacity or continuing to bail out the Federal Government
for its failure to act.
Ratepayers are not the only ones who face serious consequences
because of inaction by the DOE. The taxpayers are threatened too. Last
year, the Federal courts ruled that the DOE will be liable for damages
if it does not accept commercial nuclear waste by January 31, 1998.
Under current law, no one at the DOE will be held personally liable
for any assessed damages; the bill will go to the American taxpayers at
an estimated cost between $40 to $80 billion. Such a tremendous
liability burden on taxpayers would make the public bailout of the
savings and loan collapse seem small in comparison.
What is worse is that while our States, our utility ratepayers, and
the taxpayers are being unfairly punished by the Department of Energy's
inaction, the Federal Government has been active in meeting the interim
nuclear waste storage needs of foreign countries.
Under the Atoms for Peace Program, the DOE has resumed collecting
spent nuclear fuel from a total of 41 countries. Last year, the DOE
completed urgent relief shipments of 252 spent nuclear fuel assemblies
from European nations to the agency's facility at Savannah River. It
has also accepted nuclear spent fuel from Latin American countries.
Ultimately, as I learned during a recent trip to the Savannah River
site, which is down in South Carolina, up to 890 foreign research
reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE over a 13-year period. Again,
up to 890 foreign research reactor cores will be accepted by the DOE
over a 13-year period.
In addition, our Government is actively helping other countries
reduce their nuclear waste stockpiles. With the Department of Defense
spending up to $400 million on designing and constructing an interim
nuclear waste storage facility in Russia to help dismantle the cold war
threat, the world will certainly be a safer place, if that happens.
But, again, our Defense Department is spending $400 million to help
Russia design, construct, and facilitate an interim waste storage
facility, but yet cannot do it in this country.
Now, Mr. President, as a Senator who is concerned about our national
security needs, I understand the rationale behind reducing our
international nuclear dangers. But what I and many others cannot
comprehend is how our Government has made it a priority to help foreign
countries with their nuclear waste problems while simultaneously
ignoring the concerns right here in our own country.
It seems clear to me that while States, utilities, and ratepayers
have kept their end of the bargain, the DOE has not done its part. That
sends the wrong message to the American people about trusting the
promises of the Federal Government. Maybe that is why the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 48 State agencies and
36 utilities have now all joined together in a lawsuit to stop
ratepayers' payments into the nuclear waste fund and to escrow $600
million that will soon go into that fund this year. Because too long,
our States, utilities, and ratepayers have acted in good faith and
relied upon the Federal Government to live up to its obligations.
Evidently, they have had enough of the DOE's excuses for inaction and
have proposed their own recourse.
This issue has created strange bedfellows as well. In a recent
interview, former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary agreed that action on an
interim site is needed as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that
Secretary O'Leary waited until she was free from the administration to
openly support interim storage, but I think her comments are important
to remember as we attempt to protect our Nation's ratepayers and
taxpayers.
In addition, Mr. President, the former head of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management under the Clinton administration, Daniel
Dreyfus, also said that he believes the DOE must move to meet the
January 31, 1998, deadline. Key labor unions have even joined the fight
to restore the DOE's promises. J.J. Barry, president of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, recently wrote me, and
he said, ``I am calling on you and your colleagues to put partisan
politics aside for the good of our Nation and America's workers and
their families. We must address this problem now or else face serious
economic and environmental consequences later.'' He went on to say,
``Please support passage of S. 104.''
Despite this widespread support, the DOE has failed to offer an
alternative to our legislation.
Although the Department's new Secretary now admits that a Federal
solution is needed to resolve our interim storage problems, he recently
indicted in a meeting with nuclear utility executives that the DOE is
still unwilling to move commercial spent fuel. Instead, the DOE offered
a proposal to compensate utilities for onsite storage.
Unfortunately, this proposed compensation scheme does little but
needlessly spend the taxpayers' money while continuing the failed
status quo. It signals to the ratepayers that the Federal Government
has no intention of moving commercial nuclear waste in the near future,
despite a Federal court mandate that it does.
So again, who will pay for this? It will not be the new Secretary,
Mr. Pena. It will not be the Department of Energy or out of its budget.
It will gladly pay the fines, but it will come out of the ratepayers'
and the taxpayers' pockets in order to do this. So they are playing
fast and loose with the taxpayers' money once again.
Moreover, continuing the policy of noncentralized storage facilities
may lead to the premature shutdown of one nuclear plant in Minnesota--
compromising 30 percent of the State's energy needs and increasing
ratepayer costs.
So again, clearly, leadership is needed to restore the promises made
to the American people. If such leadership will not come from the
Clinton-Gore administration, then it will have to come from Congress.
Senate Energy and Natural Resoruces Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski,
Senator Larry Craig, and I crafted a bipartisan proposal, again, S.
104, identical to legislation supported last year by 63 Senators.
We have put this proposal forward as a good-faith effort to help
resolve this situation for the sake of protecting the legitimate
interests of our ratepayers and taxpayers, as well as protecting
national security and protecting the environment. Last month, the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed this bipartisan
legislation on a 15 to 5 vote.
Mr. President, Congress has an obligation to protect the American
public also from the estimated $40 to $80 billion that they face in
liability expenses, because the DOE has refused to act.
Our bill will reform our current civilian nuclear waste program to
avoid the squandering of billions of dollars of ratepayers' and
taxpayers' money. It will eliminate the current need for onsite storage
at our Nation's nuclear plants and keep plants from shutting down
prematurely due to the lack of storage space. And it will also help to
maintain stable energy prices.
Our legislation also assures that transportation of nuclear waste
will continue to be conducted in a safe manner.
For the interests of my colleagues, there have already been 2,400
shipments of high-level nuclear waste in
[[Page S2786]]
our Nation, including numerous shipments of naval spent fuel and
foreign research reactor fuel.
In fact, in these pictures behind me it illustrates the means by
which shipments of foreign-generated fuel are being transported to the
Department of Energy's Savannah River facility. The safety record of
these shipments speaks for itself.
They come into the Port of Charleston, SC. They are loaded off the
ships and on to rail cars, and then transported to Savannah River. That
is 2,400 shipments. And they have all been completed safely. And I
think, again, the safety record of these shipments speaks for itself.
Again, this is spent fuel that is already being shipped across the
United States, so it is no longer a question of technology but becomes
one of politics.
Even so, modifications have been made to this legislation to further
ensure that all spent fuel will be transported safely.
Mr. President, for too long our States, our ratepayers and taxpayers,
have been threatened by a policy, again, one of inaction. As passed out
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, this legislation sets up
a reasonable deadline for the DOE to finally live up to its promises.
We cannot, in good conscience, delay that deadline any further. It is
unreasonable to ask the taxpayers to sacrifice any further for a
department that has failed--a department that has failed--to do its
job.
So I am here today also to urge my colleagues to take a giant step
forward in moving this legislation closer to Senate passage by voting
for cloture and allowing the bill to be debated.
Again, this is not a question of science. It is not a question of
technology. And I do not believe it is a question of safety in
transportation. But it has become a plain question of politics. Will
the political decisions be made to allow this bill and the solving of
this problem to go forward? I think this bill is the first step in that
direction. As I said, I urge my colleagues to support this.
I want to thank you, Mr. President, very much.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Privileges of the Floor
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during the duration
of the consideration of S. 104 that floor privileges be extended to two
more members of my staff, Jean Neal and Andy Vermilye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________