[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?
____________________