[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 42 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1408-H1409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a serious 
environmental issue that has been developing in communities all across 
America. This pressing environmental issue is the Federal Government's 
lack of responsible spent nuclear fuel policy. Despite past promises 
and contracts, the administration is ignoring their responsibility to 
ensure the safe and timely disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
  Let us talk a little bit about the background of this issue. Riding 
the crest of a new technology back in the 1950's, the Federal 
Government encouraged the Nation's utilities to use nuclear power as a 
generation source through the ``Atoms for Peace Initiative.'' In 
return, the Federal Government promised to make use of utility spent 
nuclear fuel by reprocessing it for other uses.
  In 1978, President Carter outlined the reprocessing of commercial 
spent nuclear fuel by the Federal Government due to concerns about 
proliferation.

                              {time}  1200

  In 1982, Congress came up with a solution for the management of 
commercial spent fuel by enacting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 
Utilities operating nuclear power plants entered into contracts with 
the Department of Energy in which the agency promised to begin 
accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998. In return, the Nation's 
customers for nuclear power would contribute to a trust fund to 
contribute to the disposal of that spent nuclear fuel.
  To finance this project, the Federal Government has collected over 
$11 billion in fees from nuclear power customers and has spent over $5 
billion. Rate-paying customers from my State of Minnesota have paid 
more than $250 million to the Federal Government for the disposal of 
spent fuel. In 1987, Congress recognized that the Department of Energy 
was making slow progress toward a permanent repository, and amended the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to focus on studies for a single potential 
site.
  Here we are, 15 years from the enactment of the 1982 Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act and 10 years after the act was

[[Page H1409]]

amended. We are 9 months from the Department of Energy's deadline to 
begin accepting nuclear waste, but the Department says it will not be 
able to keep its promise and fulfill its responsibility.
  The latest estimate by the Department of Energy is that it will not 
have a permanent repository available until at least the year 2010. 
This is not acceptable. In the meantime, nuclear waste is beginning to 
pile up at nuclear power plants across the Nation.
  In my own district, for example the Prairie Island nuclear plant has 
been forced to build and operate a temporary storage facility because 
of the Department of Energy's failure to fulfill its responsibilities. 
This is a serious concern to the local communities who rely on the 
plant for jobs and those who count on it for electricity as well. This 
is an enormous concern to the Prairie Island Indian community, who 
share their island with the plant. The tribe is very concerned that 
their island, at the confluence of both the Vermillion and Mississippi 
Rivers, will become a de facto permanent repository if the Federal 
Government does not live up to its responsibility.
  Similar concerns are shared by Americans all across the Nation. 
Seventy-three spent nuclear storage facilities will be built in 34 
States unless the Department of Energy establishes a temporary 
facility. The Department of Energy has ignored the concerns of citizens 
across the country, and has continued to insist that it is unable to 
begin accepting and storing used nuclear fuel, as promised in the past. 
Even a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals that the Department 
of Energy is obligated by law to begin accepting spent fuel has not 
changed the Department's position.
  While the Department of Energy has been forced by the courts to 
recognize their obligation, they have refused to develop any solutions. 
As a matter of fact, the administration is threatening to veto the 
solution proposed by Congress. This avoidance of responsibility is 
outrageous and morally wrong. America's electricity consumers have 
faithfully funded this program, and they are right to expect the 
timely, safe, and centralized storage they have paid for.
  The continued refusal by the Department of Energy and the 
administration to keep their promises will result in unnecessary 
additional cost to the taxpayers. The Department of Energy has already 
lost one lawsuit and the damages from breaking their contract could 
cost the taxpayers an additional $20 to $40 billion, not to mention the 
loss of jobs and electricity as nuclear power plants are forced to turn 
out their lights. The jobs and the electricity may be lost, but the 
spent fuel will remain.
  Despite the lack of leadership by the administration, I am pleased to 
announce today that our colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Fred 
Upton, has introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation which would 
restore the responsibility to the Federal Government's Waste Management 
Program. This legislation provides for a specific solution to protect 
our environment, protect our taxpayers, and restore the trust of 
electric consumers who have paid the Federal Government billions of 
dollars for this solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Members would join with me and the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] in supporting this very important 
legislation.
  The legislation simply states that as the Department of Energy works 
on a permanent site, a centralized temporary facility should be located 
at the Nevada test site. This site is an area the size of Connecticut 
that since the Truman administration has been the home to atmospheric 
and underground nuclear test blasts as well as countless active and 
abandoned nuclear labs. Its remote, arid location is ideally suited to 
store nuclear waste. By pursuing a policy that puts nuclear waste 
behind one fence, in one location, we can concentrate our resources on 
making sure it is safe.
  The Senate has under consideration a similar piece of legislation to 
ensure that the Department of Energy keeps its promises.

                          ____________________