[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2820-S2826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between 
2:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. shall be for debate equally divided on the 
motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 104, which the clerk will 
now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 104) to amend the 
     Nuclear Policy Act of 1982.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been requested by Senator Kennedy--
and it is my understanding Mr. Hatch has requested of Senator 
Murkowski--to give 15 minutes of our time to Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Murkowski will give 15 minutes to Senator Hatch. I ask 
unanimous consent for that at this stage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to express appreciation to 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Reid for their willingness to give 
Senator Hatch and myself an opportunity to introduce our children's 
health bill. I see my colleague, Senator Hatch, on the floor now. So, I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Kerry 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 525 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Would the Chair report the matter that is now on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The matter pending before the Senate is a 
motion to proceed on S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if I could make an inquiry relative to 
the time we will have on the bill this afternoon.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the proponents and opponents 
have an hour and 15 minutes each, and I say to the chairman of the 
committee, I was going to speak for about 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces that under the previous 
agreement, an hour and a half is divided. However, 15 minutes from each 
side has been allocated to the previous speaker, so there is an hour 
and 15 minutes remaining for each side.
  Mr. REID. We both understand that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. If the chairman of the committee desires to go first, I 
have no problem.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Nevada should proceed. I went first 
yesterday. I suspect we will be taking turns.
  Mr. REID. I yield myself 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we indicated yesterday, this matter is on 
the floor for one reason and one reason only. That is the nuclear power 
industry. That is the reason we are here. There is no other reason. The 
fact of the matter is that the situation here is the same as it was 
last year.
  What I indicated, Mr. President, yesterday, and it was confirmed by 
the chairman of the committee, we are not here because of science. We 
are here because of politics. We underline and we underscore that.
  What I said I would do yesterday I want to do today. That is, 
indicate to the Members of the U.S. Senate that there are approximately 
200--I repeat, 200--environmental groups opposed to this legislation. I 
am not going to read the names of the environmental groups, but I ask 
unanimous consent the entire number and names of the environmental 
groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Environmental and Citizens Groups Against the Bills That Would Replace 
                            the Current Act

       Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Greenpeace, 
     League of Conservation Voters, Public Citizen, U.S. Public 
     Interest Research Group, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Sierra Club, Military Production Network, 
     Natural Resources Defense Council, Office for Church in 
     Society, United Church of Christ, Project on Government 
     Oversight, League of Women Voters of the United States, Union 
     of American Hebrew Congregations, United Methodist General 
     Board of Church and Society, Nuclear Free America, National 
     Ministries of the Presbyterian Church (USA), Nuclear Waste 
     Citizens' Coalition, Safe Energy Communication Council, 
     Friends of the Earth, Citizens Awareness Network, Missouri 
     Coalition for the Environment, 20/20 Vision, Prairie Island 
     Coalition, Environmental Action.
       Native Youth Alliance, Nuclear Control Institute, 
     Clearwater, Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical 
     Contamination, Rocky Mountain Peace Center, Snake River 
     Alliance, Citizen Alert, Redwood Alliance, National 
     Environmental Coalition of Native Americans, Campaign for 
     Nevada's Future, Southwest Research and Information Center, 
     Clean Water Action, Free the Planet, Blue Ridge Environmental 
     Defense League, Kansas Sierra Club, Envirovideo, Kansas 
     Natural Resources Council, Greens/Green Party USA, Fellowship 
     of Reconciliation, Good Money, Inc., Wyoming Outdoor Council, 
     Nuclear Resister, Three Mile Island Alert, Western North 
     Carolina Alliance, GE Stockholders Alliance, The Peace Farm, 
     Tennessee Valley Energy Reform Coalition, C-10 Research and 
     Education Foundation, Northwest Environmental Advocates, 
     Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch, Green Party of Ohio, Grass Roots 
     Environmental Organization, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Los Angeles, Alliance to Close Indian Point, 
     Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Louisiana, Toledo Coalition 
     for Safe Energy, Wilmington College Peace Resource Center, 
     Grandmothers for Peace, Student Environmental Action 
     Coalition, U. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Orange County Greens, 
     U. of Florida Environmental Action Group, Eco-Action, Penn 
     State U., Austin Greens, Student Environmental Action 
     Coalition, U. of Northern Iowa, Los Gatos Unitarian 
     Fellowship.
       Alliance for Survival, Nuclear Democracy Network, Stop the 
     Organizations Raping Mankind, Pennsylvania Environmental 
     Network, Heart of America Northwest, Desert Citizens Against 
     Pollution, Eco Sense, American U, California Communities 
     Against Toxics, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Nuclear 
     Age Peace Foundation, People's Action for Clean Energy, 
     Iowans for Nuclear Safety, New England Coalition on Nuclear 
     Pollution, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Kansas, 
     Student Environmental Action Coalition, U. of Delaware, St. 
     Joseph Valley Greens, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, 
     Kwanitewk Native Resource Network, Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility, Atlanta, Los Alamos Study Group, Abalone 
     Alliance, Fernald Residents for Environment, Safety & Health, 
     Womens Action for New Directions, STAND, Center for Energy 
     Research, Humans Against Nuclear Waste Dumps, Mescalero, 
     Physicians for Social Responsibility, Colorado, American 
     Friends Service Committee, Denver, North American Water 
     Office, Students for Social Responsibility, CalPoly, War & 
     Peace Foundation, North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction 
     Network, Ohio Sierra Club Nuclear Issues Committee, 
     Downwinders, Women's Environment & Development Organization, 
     Mississippi River Basin Alliance, Ygdrasil Institute, 
     Nukewatch, WESPAC (Westchester People's Action Coalition), 
     Oregon Peace Works, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, 
     International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Save 
     Ward Valley, GRACE Public Fund (Global Resource Action Center 
     for the Environment), Environmental Defense Institute, 
     Citizens Regulatory Commission, The ZHABA Collective, 
     Northweast Ohio Greens, Arizona Safe Energy Coalition, Indian 
     Point Project, No Escape, Citizens at Risk: Cape Cod, E-3, 
     Wesleyan University, Wolf Creek Citizens Watchdog Group, 
     Indigenous Environmental Network, Pax Christi USA, University 
     of Maine Student Government.
       The cities of Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis, Philadelphia, 
     Decatur, GA, Mt. Rainier, Takoma Park & Greenbelt, MD, Beacon 
     NY, Falls Township, PA, Amherst, MA, Wadesboro, NC and 
     Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara (CA), Marshall, Anson 
     (NC), and Bucks (PA) counties.
       And, according to a December 1995 poll, 70% of the American 
     people.

[[Page S2821]]

       These bills override environmental laws, pre-empts state 
     environmental laws and regulations, weakens radiation 
     protection standards, makes taxpayers liable for nuclear 
     waste accidents, and threatens 50 million Americans with a 
     Mobile Chernobyl.
       It's a disaster for the environment.

  Mr. REID. Among those that are opposing this legislation are the 
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, the Students 
Environmental Action Coalition of the University of Northern Iowa, Eco-
Action of Penn State University, Southwest Research and Information 
Center, Snake River Alliance, Alliance for Survival, San Luis Obispo 
Mothers for Peace, Los Alamos Study Group, Desert Citizens Against 
Pollution. These are only a few, Mr. President, of the organizations 
that oppose this legislation. There is not a single environmental group 
in the United States of America that supports this legislation.
  We heard yesterday and we have heard time and time again, Mr. 
President, that the State of Nevada had nuclear testing, therefore, why 
do we not have open-armed acceptance of storage of nuclear waste? I 
say, Mr. President, some have said that since the Nevada desert has 
already been degraded from nuclear weapons testing, it is a logical 
place to store nuclear waste.
  Somehow, this logic seems to contradict the old saying that two 
wrongs do not make a right. The suggestion assumes that these two 
activities have something in common. The only thing they have in common 
is posing danger to Nevada citizens and its environment.
  We have just recently finished 50 years of the most dangerous period 
in America's history. During this period of time, the Soviet Union and 
the United States had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed 
against each other.
  Mr. President, as I said, just a few years ago, tens of thousands of 
nuclear warheads were pointed toward the Soviet Union and toward the 
United States. This dangerous era was ended successfully, I believe, 
Mr. President, in large part, because of what was done at the Nevada 
test site. That is, we tested the new weapons, the safety and 
reliability of those that were in existence. This, Mr. President, was a 
time of national crisis. All were called upon to do what they must in 
order to protect our country's security. The urgency of this national 
mission required things to be done in ways that, under less stressing 
conditions, would never have been permitted.
  Well, just like the promises made by advocates for waste storage in 
Nevada, that was then and this is now. Then was a period of national 
crisis and danger. Now is one of peace and prosperity. Now is a time 
when we can surely do things right. There is no danger presently that 
would drive us to endanger our environment or our public by reckless 
and ill-conceived actions.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk 
proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, with respect to disposal of high-level 
nuclear waste, this Nation is today at a crossroads. The job and the 
responsibility of addressing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from 
our Nation's powerplants--is an obligation of this body. The time for 
fixing the problem is now.
  There has been a lot of progress made. We have selected a permanent 
repository at Yucca Mountain. That is already done. It is underway. We 
have expended about $6 billion, and that 5-mile exploratory tunnel will 
soon be completed. This is a positive commitment by the Congress to 
proceed with a permanent repository. We can build on this process.
  This bill, Senate bill 104, continues the site characterization 
activities for a permanent repository. Make no mistake about it. But 
this is an ongoing process. In the meantime, we have an obligation to 
take this waste next year, in 1998. Well, this Senator from Alaska and 
the majority of my committee are of the opinion that a contract is a 
binding commitment.

  The Federal Government, 16 years ago, entered into a contract with 
the nuclear industry to take this waste in 1998. We have no place to 
put this waste because Yucca Mountain isn't completed. We face 
penalties; we face litigation. It is estimated that the damages 
associated with the inability to fulfill the contractual commitment 
will run somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion. That is an 
additional load on the taxpayers of this country. We need a temporary 
storage facility or we will continue to be storing this waste across 
the Nation for decades to come.
  Where is the waste? Well, let's look at this chart. We have 
commercial reactors represented on the chart. We have shut down 
reactors with spent fuel on sites represented on the chart. We have 110 
of the commercial reactors, 110 reactors in about 41 States. We have 10 
shut down reactors, represented on the chart. We have one existing site 
for spent commercial nuclear fuel storage on the chart, is in the State 
of Illinois. Non-DOE research reactors--we have 38 shown on the chart. 
We have naval reactor fuel up in Idaho, up in Washington, and in 
Georgia. There are 10 of those sites. Department of Energy-owned spent 
nuclear fuel sites, about 12, are indicated on the chart.
  So there is where we are. We have this stuff scattered all over the 
United States. We can choose now whether the Nation needs these 80 
sites, or just 1--1 in the arid remote Nevada test site, where we 
exploded a series of nuclear bombs during the cold war, a site that has 
been determined to be safe. It is a remote location. It has been well 
monitored by an experienced work force and a security force as well.
  Now, if Yucca is licensed for a permanent repository, it will simply 
be a very easy task to move the spent fuel to the permanent repository 
from the interim facility this bill would authorize. Now, the problem 
is that Yucca isn't going to be ready until the year 2015. Some 
suggest, well, what happens if Yucca is not licensed or is found to be 
unsuitable? Will we need a centralized interim site anyway so that we 
will be way ahead of the game? The answer is, yes, regardless of what 
happens at Yucca, this is a step we should take and take now.
  Critics have claimed that we can't store waste safely, that we don't 
have the technology. Nature itself suggests that a geologic repository, 
which this bill supports, is the best long-term answer. Let me refer 
again to a natural geological nuclear waste repository that has been in 
existence for a long time. Such a repository is in Gabon, in Africa. 
There, approximately 1.8 billion years ago, at a place called Oklo, 
scientists have proven that naturally occurring, highly enriched 
uranium began a spontaneous nuclear reaction producing almost a ton of 
plutonium, as well as all of the other fission byproducts that occur in 
spent fuel from modern nuclear power plants. That is the history. That 
is a fact. It actually happened, under the watch of Mother Nature. Now, 
Mr. President, when it happened, it happened just a few feet beneath 
the surface. No geologists studied the site before the waste was 
``stored'' there. There was no engineering barriers around the so-
called spent fuel. However, scientists have proven that the plutonium 
and the other fission products did not migrate away from that site. 
There is nothing unique, Mr. President, about the geology of Oklo. This 
``experiment'' shows that radioactive waste can be successfully 
contained within a geologic repository. Mother Nature did it 1.8 
billion years ago. Now we are talking about the science, the 
technology, and the application of mankind in the process. Well, it 
certainly seems to be taking equally as long.
  When I said that we had designated Yucca as a permanent repository 
and that we spent some $6 billion in the process, and will probably 
expend as much as $30 billion, it is important to recognize what comes 
next. First, it has to be deemed viable. That means the scientific 
information gathered by 1998 will show that nothing is there that would 
disqualify Yucca Mountain for a permanent repository. That is done next 
year, in 1998. What are the odds on that? They tell us about 90 
percent.

  The second factor is the suitability. Yucca Mountain must be 
suitable. It must be a suitable site for a permanent repository under 
the guidelines issued by the Department of Energy. When is

[[Page S2822]]

that supposed to be completed? In the year 2001. What are the odds on 
that? They tell us about 80 percent. Then, of course, it has to be 
licensed, licensed by the NRC, who issues the license for a permanent 
repository. Well, for the date of that we can only rely on the former 
Secretary of Energy O'Leary, who indicated that would be about the year 
2015.
  Talking about this waste brings us to the reality that we are going 
to have to transport it. You simply can't leave it at these sites. So 
let's talk a little bit about the transportation issue, because this is 
on the minds of many Members. This map accurately shows, from 1979 to 
1995, the movement and transportation routes of 2,400 individual 
shipments of waste around the country. The interesting thing, Mr. 
President, is that they go through every single State of the 48, with 
the exception of South Dakota and Florida. All the States are 
represented here. That is the harsh reality. We have been moving this 
waste for 16 years. Why hasn't it been on the front pages of the 
papers? Because it has been a nonevent. It has moved safely. It has 
moved from reactors. It has moved from Navy facilities and from Army 
facilities, and it has been on railroads and on highways, and it has 
been under the auspices of the Department of Energy, and it has been 
safe.
  We have heard in this debate, primarily from my good friends from 
Nevada, that somehow this waste is a new threat that America has never 
faced before. That is just poppycock. Emotional statements have been 
made time and time again, suggesting that somehow the health and safety 
of 50 million Americans will be threatened. And there have been 
references to the unfortunate Chernobyl accident. That accident, as 
everybody knows, involved a graphite reactor without a containment 
building. Electricians were in there doing an operation they weren't 
supposed to be doing. They didn't have the training. They bypassed the 
safety procedures, took the reactor critical, and the results were very 
unfortunate. But it was human error, Mr. President. The graphite 
reactors are not the type that we have in the United States. Yet, this 
effort to try to address an obligation to our Nation's waste has been 
referred to as a ``mobile Chernobyl.''
  Here is what we have been moving, Mr. President. Again, do we want to 
move it to one site in the Nevada desert now, as we wait for the 
development of our permanent repository? Or do we want to leave it for 
another 15, 16, or 17 years, actually, in the 80 sites in 41 States? No 
fatality, injury, or environmental damage has ever occurred in the 
United States because of radioactive cargo movement. That is just a 
fact. We have taken steps to ensure that the risk is as negligible as 
possible.
  Some of our friends would imply that if this bill doesn't pass, then 
nuclear waste won't be shipped on our Nation's roads. Well, that is 
simply not true, Mr. President. Let's take a look at the routes used--
the routes used for 15 years, again, for the thousands of fuel 
shipments. Some say they didn't know the fuel shipments took place. 
Again, as I have said, that is because they are uneventful. Trucks 
carrying the casks have been in accidents, but the casks that contain 
the nuclear material have performed as designed. They have not broken 
open. The nuclear disasters that the Senators from Nevada have referred 
to, Mr. President, simply haven't happened.
  Now, we have heard claims that the number of shipments that would 
occur under Senate bill 104 is an unprecedented amount. Well, that is 
simply not true. We have our storage in our reactors in the cells 
adjacent to the reactors and the pools, and those are filling up. We 
need to relieve that congestion, and that is the whole purpose of the 
interim retrievable storage. We currently have about 30,000 metric tons 
of spent fuel in this country. But the French alone have shipped that 
amount of spent fuel all over Europe--for that matter, all over the 
world. This is not just history. It is happening today. It is happening 
all over the world.

  The Department of Energy, as a matter of fact, is transporting spent 
nuclear fuel all over the country and all over the world as we speak. 
Here it is in the country. Let's take a look at a chart of the world. 
Here we have it, Mr. President. There seems to be a double standard 
here when the Department of Energy claims that it cannot possibly 
fulfill its obligation to the U.S. electric ratepayers to take spent 
fuel. Why is it doing so in foreign countries? Well, here they are. In 
Europe, there is Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, 
Australia, throughout South America, and Peru and Canada. We are taking 
this now under agreements that have been made. Where is it going? It is 
going to the Savannah River in South Carolina. This chart shows the 
actual times of delivery from 1996 to 2009. These are the countries to 
which we have committed taking their waste. So it is a double standard, 
Mr. President. Why are we doing it for foreign countries? We are not 
doing it for our own nuclear industry.
  You may ask why the taxpayers are paying for the Department of Energy 
to transport and store nuclear waste in foreign countries while 
American ratepayers are left out. All the countries in color on this 
chart ship fuel to the United States for storage at the Department of 
Energy facilities. It doesn't seem to be a mystery to some. But it is a 
mystery to me. Another mystery is why many of the same groups that most 
actively oppose resolving our domestic fuel storage problems were most 
supportive of taking nuclear waste from foreign countries. Think about 
it. We are taking waste from Russia--military waste--because we deem 
that lessens the proliferation threat. If they support taking nuclear 
waste from overseas, can the safety of transportation be an issue? One 
wonders why it is now. How can it be safe for the Department of Energy 
to ship spent fuel halfway across the world but not across a few 
States? They don't explain that very well, do they?
  Actually, if you look closer, you see that the Department of Energy 
transports nuclear waste across the United States. Let's take a look at 
a map of the United States. It goes into Hanford. It goes into 
Savannah; Hanford in the State of Washington. This shows the American 
research reactors at our universities. They ship fuel for storage at 
DOE facilities. They are scattered all across the country. The various 
universities are Ohio State, MIT, the University of Virginia, and Oak 
Ridge. We could go on and on. They are all across the country. That is 
why I contend that we have a double standard.
  Why does the Department of Energy pay to transport and store nuclear 
waste from foreign countries but won't do its own duty to the U.S. 
power reactors that have paid for the service? They have paid for the 
service. The ratepayers that depend on nuclear energy paid $13 billion 
to the Federal Government. Where is the money? It has gone into the 
general fund. It is not an escrow account. But there is a contract 
signed for next year. The Department of Energy will say that they take 
foreign fuel to help with the nonproliferation. That is all well and 
good. But spent nuclear fuel is spent nuclear fuel regardless of where 
it is. If transportation and storage is safe for some, why isn't it 
safe for all?
  I think this just proves the point that the obstacles to moving our 
Nation's spent fuel are political. They are not technical. We have 
moved it. We move it from our research reactors all over the country. 
We move it from other countries in the world and bring it to the United 
States to Savannah, and have been doing it for some time.
  My bill, and the committee bill, S. 104 of Senator Craig and others, 
provides the authority to coordinate a systematic safe transportation 
network to move spent fuel to a storage facility under Senate bill 104. 
The Department of Energy is required to use--``required''; it is not 
optional--to use NRC-certified transportation containers to transport 
fuel along special routes chosen by DOT radioactivity transport 
regulations and considerations set out in the bill.
  Let's take a look at how that is shipped because I think it is 
important to recognize the care that goes into this. This is a truck 
that is moving over the highways of the Nation probably today; moving 
some kind of fuel in a cask probably to the Savannah River site in 
South Carolina. It is moving safely. It is moving in a special 
container. These are probably spent fuel rods. They are radioactive. 
But by the same token, care and engineering technology has gone into 
this. I find it

[[Page S2823]]

surprising to note that--and the comment was made in the debate that 
the environmental groups don't support this legislation. I find it 
further perplexing that these groups on the one hand are opposed as we 
all are to the increase in greenhouse gases yet the only current 
technology available to reduce it dramatically is nuclear energy. Our 
use of nuclear energy reduces more than 140 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide emissions each year, not to mention sulfur dioxide and 
various other pollutants. This is the contribution that nuclear energy 
contributes to air quality in this country. Some suggest that the 
opposition by the environmental groups is simply to shut down the 
reactors because they do not believe in or don't approve of nuclear 
energy or nuclear power.

  But they don't want to recognize that about 22 percent of our 
Nation's power is generated by nuclear reactors, and, if you reduce or 
eliminate the nuclear power industry in this country, you will have to 
replace it with something. It will probably be replaced with carbon 
fuels. And there is an emission concern there.
  So I say to those that are opposed to this legislation that they have 
an obligation to come up with something that answers the question of 
what we do with our spent fuel. I think that is what this bill does.
  Further safeguards have been taken in this legislation to provide 
that transportation cannot occur until the Department of Energy has 
provided specific technical assistance and funding to States affected 
by the transportation route, Indian tribes, and for emergency response 
planning along the transportation routes. That isn't what is done now. 
But that is what is required in the bill to make it that much safer. 
The language builds on what is an already safe system for transporting 
spent fuel in this country. As I have said before, the public has never 
been exposed to radiation from spent fuel cargo even in accidents. 
Between 1971 and 1989 the Department of Transportation tells us that 
there were seven minor accidents involving trucks carrying waste: Flat 
tires, and various other things. But no radioactivity was released in 
any of the accidents. That is because transportation canisters are 
designed to maintain their integrity during severe accidents. They have 
been used for thousands of safe shipments over the years. As a matter 
of fact, they were designing casks at one time when they contemplated 
flying the fuel. It was suggested that the technology existed for casks 
to be designed for a 30,000-foot free fall. And I am told that they 
could design it.
  Nevertheless, the canisters that are depicted here in the picture, 
the design approved by the NRC for spent fuel transport have 
demonstrated a remarkable ability to withstand falls of 30-foot drops. 
And these are tests that were made into a national unyielding surface. 
There was no penetration from a drop of 40 inches onto a steel spike; 
no penetration being engulfed in 1,475-degree temperature fire for 30 
minutes; no penetration, submerged under 3 feet of water for 8 hours; 
no penetration.
  So, despite what you may hear, engineers at the national labs tell us 
that the test conditions that these casks are subjected to are much 
more rigorous than any that they would face in real, live accidents.
  These casks have been tested in some more rigorous ways. Probably it 
would be interesting to watch because they have been run into by 
locomotives, and crashed into walls at 70 miles an hour. If any of the 
Senators or the staff want to see the video of these tests we would be 
happy to provide them with the tapes to view and to keep.
  So I suggest that we face facts. The history of the nuclear waste 
shipments is that they are moving almost as we speak, continue to move, 
and will move tomorrow but they are not going to be carrying the waste 
that they were contracted for. They will be carrying other wastes from 
other countries from research reactors from our universities. And it 
fails me to know why we are excluding the waste that we contracted for 
16-17 years ago to take next year, and we have no provision to take 
that waste. That is what this bill is all about. S. 104 provides safe 
transportation with a perfect record, and I think it makes it even 
safer.
  So as a consequence, that tells the story of the transportation 
system.
  Let's look very briefly at what we are proposing. This is the 
location for the waste storage at the Nevada test sites that we have 
used for the previous 800 nuclear weapons tests. That is what it looks 
like. It is a pretty barren area. You see some roads for access, and 
mounds where 800 nuclear weapons tests were made. Why was this area 
picked? Probably there are a lot of reasons. It is remote. That is 
certainly one. The weather is pretty stable out there. You can observe 
the testing very well. They had a trained work force. To some extent I 
suppose there was some economic reasons. But it is not my State, and it 
is not appropriate that I evaluate the rationale that went into it. But 
that is the site.

  When we look at all other factors and recognize that nobody wants to 
store waste, the fact that we have it in 40 to 41 States, and the fact 
that we are going to have to move it regardless of whether it is being 
moved to a temporary repository or eventually to a permanent one, the 
transportation factor is a given.
  So I hope that those that are concerned about transportation 
recognize a couple of things: One, they may have waste in their State 
already. It may be military waste. It may be naval waste. It may be 
waste from some other activity associated with their university, or 
they may have nuclear power. If you want it to stay there indefinitely 
with no action, then that is the status quo. And that is where we have 
been. But if you want to move it out of your State, you have to move it 
someplace. The question is where do you move it?
  We have determined that this is the permanent site for a nuclear 
repository. When that was chosen, it was chosen over potential sites in 
the 50 States. Why was it chosen? Because it was deemed to be, of all 
the sites that were evaluated, the best site with the highest 
likelihood of this being named the permanent repository when we get 
through with the process now underway. That is the process of 
viability, suitability, and licensing. Then it goes in there 
permanently under our policy. But the idea of moving now to accept this 
area for a temporary repository until we can complete Yucca Mountain is 
what this legislation is all about because it suggests that it would 
move in those casks by transportation routes, either surface railroad 
or highway, in these casks out to a pad, out in the desert where it 
would be monitored. And those casks would be held there so we can 
fulfill our contractual agreement as we recognized that the storage at 
our nuclear power generator sites are filled up. They would be moved 
out to this pad and be monitored until such time as the permanent 
repository is completed.
  On the chance that the permanent repository is not licensed and it 
doesn't get through this viability, suitability, or licensing, this 
bill provides that we still have an obligation to address a resolve. 
That would require the President then to find another site. We have 
gone through all the 50 States. If this one is not suitable for a 
permanent repository, it requires the President to find one. If he 
doesn't find one, he comes back and designates that this be the site.
  Now, some suggest there should be some other consideration. Maybe we 
should do something like the base closing procedure, where we name a 
group of qualified people to determine a site. The problem we have with 
this legislation is nobody wants to face the reality of making the 
decision now. They want to put it off. The administration does not want 
to have it happen on their watch. They would just as soon have it 
happen on another's watch. We could easily put this off to another 
Congress, but we are cheating the taxpayers because the liability for 
nonperformance of the contract is going to face us next year. The 
longer we keep that waste in violation of the contractual terms, the 
greater the liability to the taxpayer for nonperformance, because 
Government simply passes that liability on to you and me, and we pay 
for it.
  As I said, we have spent $6 billion here at Yucca. We are going to be 
spending about $30 billion by the time it is completed. We have been 
transporting waste fuel around this country for 16 years. We sit, 
today, with 80 sites in 41 States and we are even having some Members 
suggest that all they want from this legislation is the assurance that 
it will not be put in their

[[Page S2824]]

State. I suppose we could go back to a 6th grade mentality--and pursue 
a series of amendments from virtually everybody, in all the 50 States 
with the exception of one. I would hope that would not happen. I would 
hope we can recognize our obligation as parliamentarians and address 
this with a resolve that suggests the way to move on this thing, and 
move now, is as proposed under this legislation, which would provide, 
after the viability is determined on Yucca Mountain as being a 
permanent site, which is anticipated sometime next year, to then allow 
a temporary repository to occur in the Nevada desert at the Nevada test 
site.
  If somebody else has a better suggestion for a response to the 
obligation we have now, why, I am certainly willing to consider 
amendments to the pending legislation.
  Mr. President, recognizing the time element that we have, I ask how 
much time remains on the side of the proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska controls 40 minutes 
and 50 seconds.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield to my 
colleague at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to return to what I think is the 
fundamental flaw in this legislation, and that is that it is unneeded, 
unwise, and unsafe. When you ask who wants this legislation, the only 
one that is really pushing it, the driving force, is the nuclear 
utilities. That is where this all comes from. Every environmental 
organization in the country has expressed its opposition. The 
scientific community--the Congress established the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board. I will repeat for the benefit of my colleagues, 
in 1989 a commission was part of the review process. They said there 
was no safety advantage to interim storage. In 1996, we have a report 
from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board that said there is no 
urgent technical need for centralized storage of commercial spent fuel. 
There is no safety factor to consider. And the same technical review 
board, constituted with new members in 1997, has offered testimony to 
the effect that it would be a very unwise decision because it would 
interfere with the permanent siting process.
  That was testimony that was given on February 5. So, if we are asking 
about science and the scientific community, they have expressed 
themselves. They said this is not a good idea. If you are asking about 
the environmental community, where they are coming from, they are 
saying it is not a good idea.
  Yesterday, I spent a few moments talking about the specifics of the 
bill. Let me just very briefly retrace some of those issues for us. In 
effect, what this legislation does is to gut a process that was a 
bipartisan piece of legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969. If you look at page 47, and you go through a number of the 
specific provisions there--and we will debate this, I suspect, at 
greater length during the course of the week--but the act virtually 
emasculates the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. It 
says, yes, there will be an environmental impact statement, but the 
statement may not consider the need for interim storage, the time of 
initial availability, any alternatives to spent fuel storage, any 
alternatives to the site of the facility, any alternatives to the 
design, the environmental impact of the storage beyond the initial term 
of the license, which is 20 years. This makes an absolute mockery of 
any kind of profession that this follows NEPA, the National 
Environmental Policy Act, of 1969.

  There are other provisions as well that refer to the preemption of 
all Federal environmental laws. That is section 501. We have talked 
about that extensively during the course of the debate. There are 
standards which are compromised in this provision. For example, there 
is a statutory provision that occurs on page 56 that indicates, rather 
than the Environmental Protection Agency having the ability, 
independent and unfettered, to make a judgment as to what the correct 
standard would be in terms of radioactive emission exposure, it sets a 
100 millirem standard by statute and requires the EPA to affirmatively 
prove that the overall system performance standard would constitute an 
unreasonable risk to health and safety.
  We did not do that anyplace else in terms of the WIPP facility which 
was debated last year. The two able Senators from New Mexico made 
forceful statements that they believed, because the WIPP facility was 
going to be operational in their State, they had the expectation that 
EPA would establish the highest possible standards to protect the 
health and safety of New Mexicans. Who among us could disagree with 
that? But that is not the standard for us here in Nevada. The EPA is 
constrained and limited, in terms of what it can do, and here is an 
example of 100 millirems of radiation, S. 104. There is safe drinking 
water, other low-level-waste facilities--the WIPP facility, which I 
just mentioned, has a standard of 15 millirems during the course of a 
year. So this thing is absolutely so phony in terms of any kind of 
protection for health and safety, it ought to be something of concern 
to any legislator, irrespective of where the final destination may be.
  Let me say, the National Academy of Sciences--these are scientists, 
not people selected by the Governor of Nevada or the Nevada 
congressional delegation--go through a whole list of things they 
recommend. They recommend a risk-based standard rather than a 100 
millirem standard. They have recommended the protective standard be 
defined by a critical group: a small, relatively homogeneous group be 
representative of those expected to receive the highest doses. That is 
not included.
  They maintain that, in terms of the length of time, because nuclear 
waste is lethal for thousands and thousands of years, there should be 
no cutoff period of time, that there must be an ability to protect for 
thousands of years. What does S. 104 provide? That you can only 
consider the first 1,000 years. I suppose, whether you are an advocate 
for term limits or not, we would all agree that 1,000 years is not 
going to affect anybody in this Chamber. But, I mean for something that 
is deadly for 10,000 years and beyond, that is simply irresponsible to 
put those kinds of handcuffs on.
  Human intrusion--all of the scientific community acknowledges there 
is no scientific basis for assuming there would be no human intrusion 
during these thousands and thousands of years. The statute we are 
dealing with, S. 104, directs just the contrary, to make an assumption 
that there is to be no human intrusion.
  The National Academy of Sciences said that these raise complicated 
policy issues. There ought to be opportunity for wide-ranging input 
from all interested parties. These are set by statute, under S. 104--no 
public comment.
  So, I must say that in terms of science, in terms of fairness, in 
terms of health and public safety, this piece of legislation is a 
disaster not only for my State but for America.

  I want to speak for just a moment about the transportation issue and 
some of the film footage that has appeared. First, I think it is 
important for us to understand that, although Nevada, under this 
legislation, is the ultimate repository on an interim basis, there are 
some 43 States, 51 million Americans who live within a mile of each of 
these major corridors. The red depicts the highways, the blue depicts 
the rail.
  You are going to have, wherever you may be looking on this map here, 
you are going to have roughly 16,000 shipments that would pass along 
these corridors--16,000. It has been suggested that the Department of 
Energy is experienced, but I think to put this in some context, Mr. 
Dreyfus, who was the head of the Radioactive Waste Management Office, 
an individual well known to my colleagues, having testified before the 
Energy Committee on a number of times, says this: ``Material like 
this,'' referring to nuclear waste, ``has been moving around for a long 
time. So that is not a technical challenge,'' he says. ``But compared 
to the kind of campaign what we are talking about, what the industry 
has been doing up to now is trivial. We are talking about a magnitude 
of many times greater. We are talking about 16,000 shipments.''

[[Page S2825]]

  Since 1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported shipments that 
are sent by rail or by truck averaged approximately 900 miles or less. 
We are talking about thousands of miles. As the occupant of the Chair 
knows, our States are in the West and far removed from most of these 
reactor sites. So, I think it is important to make that point.
  Let me add a couple of other things, if I may here. First of all, the 
casks that have been shown have no relevance to this debate--none. The 
casks that would be used for shipping have not been designed. They are 
not in existence. The casks that are used in the film prepared by the 
Nuclear Energy Institute refer to a previous generation of smaller 
casks. Those are not what is contemplated. Those are not what is 
contemplated. We are talking about a new generation of casks, casks 
that do not meet standards which we believe every such cask should 
meet.
  For example, it requires a 30-minute exposure to a fire at 1,475 
degrees. However, diesel fuel burns at an average of 1,800 degrees and 
can reach 3,200 degrees. So the 30-minute proposed standard for these 
yet-to-be-designed and produced casks does not address real world 
accidents, where train wrecks can burn for hours, if not for days. None 
of the tests would require that kind of protection.
  The NRC has estimated that 6 out of every 1,000 rail accidents could 
cause fundamental damage that will cause the cask to fail. Given the 
16,000 shipments that are contemplated, that comes to 96 accidents 
where the NRC-approved standard would fail. I submit that is not great 
comfort to those millions of Americans who are going to be along the 
route.
  The NRC claims the cask design will prevent radioactive leakage in 
severe accidents. But the cask design has never--repeat, never--been 
tested in lifelike situations. In one computer simulation, the NRC 
chose four real-life severe transportation accidents and applied these 
conditions to a cask meeting NRC specs.
  In one of those real-life accidents, which involved a 1982 train 
derailment and fire in Livingston, LA--this was an accident that 
occurred and a fire that resulted--the NRC publicly acknowledged that 
the high temperatures would cause an NRC-approved cask to fail. In 
their words, ``the radiological hazard would exceed compliance values 
by up to a factor of four.''
  This is not some theoretical accident, a hypothetical. This is an 
accident that occurred in Livingston, LA, in 1982, and the NRC said the 
standards they propose would not have protected a cask under their 
proposed design from releasing radioactivity. That is not much comfort, 
that is not much assurance for those who are going to be along the 
highways and railways.
  Let me address an issue that I think has not received the kind of 
attention that it should, and that is, this bill is a bailout for the 
nuclear power industry. Dating back to the time of the inception of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it was always agreed that the utilities 
themselves should pay for the storage and ultimate disposition of high-
level nuclear waste, and the mechanism established was to establish a 
nuclear waste trust fund in which ratepayers would pay at the rate of 1 
mill for each kilowatt hour generated into this trust fund. That is the 
current way.
  Here is what this bill does. Rather than have the ratepayers pay for 
the ultimate cost, this bill very cleverly transfers the liability and 
responsibility to the American taxpayer. The year 2033 is the last 
year, under currently licensed nuclear reactors, that there will be 
reactors in operation. Currently, under General Accounting Office 
actuarial projections, the fund is from $4 billion to $8 billion 
underfunded in terms of what will be required, because as each reactor 
goes off line, it no longer contributes to the fund. The last reactor 
goes off line in the year 2033, and it is required that the 
expenditures, in terms of dealing with that waste, continue until the 
year 2071. So years after the last mill is deposited into the nuclear 
waste trust fund, expenses will continue. As I have indicated, right 
now the General Accounting Office says this fund is $4 billion to $8 
billion underfunded.
  It is contended that the ratepayers have not gotten what they 
bargained for. That is certainly not true now, and the surplus that is 
in the account is designed to take care of those years from 2033 to 
2071, where nothing will come into the fund by way of a mill-tax levy 
because there will be no power generated from those reactors.
  Here is a very, very clever way of shifting the liability to the 
American taxpayer. This bill, in its present form, caps the amount of 
contribution, even though the current fund is underfunded by $4 billion 
to $8 billion at 1 mill per kilowatt hour, and after the year 2003, it 
says that the only mill tax that can be collected would be the amount 
necessary to pay for the appropriation from the fund that year, 
providing no revenue for the outyears.
  So this is corporate welfare, this is corporate pork, this is a new 
entitlement program which will cost the American taxpayers literally 
billions and billions of dollars in the outyears.
  Everybody acknowledges that the 1998 deadline that was put into the 
act in 1982 cannot be met. I would say parenthetically, that was not a 
scientific date that was put in. Indeed, there was resistance in 1982 
because it was felt that that time line was too short. This was a 
deadline that was pushed by our friends, once again, from the nuclear 
utilities. So it is unfair to blame the Department of Energy and the 
scientific community for 1998. This was a deadline pushed by the 
utilities.
  I believe that there is equity and fairness to be provided to the 
ratepayers, because after 1998, they will not have permanent storage 
available. In each of the Congresses in which I have served, we have 
offered legislation that would entitle the utilities to an offset; that 
is, to the extent that the storage would not be available in 1998 and 
they would incur additional expense, as they will, that should be an 
offset or a reduction in the contribution that they pay into the 
nuclear waste fund so that the utility ratepayers do not pay twice. I 
think that is fair. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made 
there, and the administration believes that.

  As recently as this past month, there were discussions to provide 
compensation to the utilities because permanent storage will not be 
available after 1998, and it was rejected by the utilities. They do not 
care a wit about that. That is not what they are interested in. They 
are interested in getting the taxpayer to bail them out for the money 
that will take beyond the year 2033, to the year 2071, to, in effect, 
take care of the expenses of the nuclear waste that they generated--
that they generated--that they have made profits on over all these many 
years. So there is not an argument of equity we are addressing here, 
because not a single provision in S. 104 addresses the question of 
equity.
  We have a piece of legislation which we have introduced, again, this 
Congress which we have previously introduced, which says, ``Look, after 
1998, yes, you don't get the permanent storage that was contemplated, 
we understand that.'' There is no conceivable way that could occur. If 
this bill was passed tomorrow and signed into law, the 1998 deadline 
could not be met for at least probably to the year 2001.
  The administration has offered to provide compensation to reimburse 
utilities for the additional costs incurred, and our legislation would 
specifically do so. So this has not one thing to do with ratepayers 
being charged twice. They are given an opportunity for relief, if they 
want it, in the legislation that my senior colleague from Nevada and I 
have introduced. So let's put that to rest.
  The lawsuit. The lawsuit changes nothing. The lawsuit was finalized 
last year before we concluded our date on 1936, the predecessor to S. 
104, and the lawsuit simply provides that there is a legal obligation 
on the part of the Department to take the waste at some point down the 
line. There is a legal obligation. It in no way suggests that the waste 
would be physically removed by 1998, and it could not.
  So when you look at the contract, each of the utilities under the 
1982 act entered into a contract with the Department of Energy, and 
that contract simply says that in case there is an avoidable delay, the 
utility is entitled to an offset in terms of what is being paid into 
the nuclear waste fund by the amount of additional expense they incur. 
That is the remedy, that is fair, that is the law.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer is suggesting that my time has 
about run

[[Page S2826]]

out. I reserve the remainder of the time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

                          ____________________