[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 43 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3111-S3113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate has before it at this moment, 
and has for some days, through tomorrow, the consideration of Senate 
bill 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.
  Senator Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, and myself, along with a good number of others of our 
colleagues, have recognized the need for this Government and this 
Congress to clarify its position on high-level nuclear waste and spent 
fuel in compliance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended in 1987.
  As a result of that recognition, that is exactly what we are doing. 
We are certainly encouraging at this moment a resounding passage of 
this bill tomorrow.
  Mr. President, last week my colleague from Alaska, the chairman of 
the committee, introduced the substitute. I am discouraged that in 
spite of all the work we have done, the administration has not 
withdrawn its veto threat of this legislation.
  We have listened to the other side. We have incorporated amendments 
from the other side. We have now picked up substantially more Members 
from the other side who are supporting this bill.
  I have recently reviewed, once again, the basis for the veto threat 
and I find no remaining legitimate reason for this administration to be 
in opposition.
  Let me address just a couple of specifics for just a few moments.
  The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 would 
effectively establish Nevada as the site of an interim nuclear storage 
facility before a viability assessment of Yucca Mountain is completed. 
Not true. Mr. President, let me repeat, that is an untrue statement.
  S. 104 designates the Nevada site as the location for the interim 
storage facility after--after--the DOE completes the viability 
assessment in 1998.
  The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 would 
create loopholes in the National Environmental Policy Act. The truth is 
that the substitute has lengthened the duration of both licensing and 
public participation opportunities. Again, what the President said and 
what is in fact in the legislation simply do not relate.
  The statement of administration policy states that S. 104 replaces 
the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set acceptable 
radiation release standards with a statutory standard. Again, we have 
fully addressed this concern. Our substitute reverses the approach on 
setting an environmental standard for the deep geologic repository. S. 
104, as introduced, set a standard of 100 millirem. Last week, I 
addressed this body and set this 100 millirem in the proper context of 
everyday risk from everyday living. I noted for my colleagues that we 
receive an annual radiation dosage of 80 millirem simply by spending 
most of our time inside the U.S. Senate. Why? It is a product of the 
radiation that comes from the granite structure around the Senate body 
itself. In other words, the normal decay of stone that is part of the 
structure of this Capitol.
  We have listened, however, to the concerns of our opponents and the 
administration, that this legislation should contain a risk-based 
standard. We have heard discussions. We have listened to those 
suggestions and adopted the recommendations of the National Academy of 
Science.
  In our openness to enhance the broad bipartisan support already 
enjoyed by this legislation, we have listened to all of those 
suggestions. Therefore, our substitute now requires that the 
Environmental Protection Agency determine a risk-based radiation 
standard for the repository.
  In other words, we tried to utilize all national and international 
standards that are acceptable to the public, based on science, but were 
forced to say, OK, you won't believe the truth, then we will allow the 
Environmental Protection Agency latitude in developing those standards. 
Our substitute directs that the Environmental Protection Agency set 
this radiation standard in accordance with the National Academy of 
Science's recommendations.
  Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the chairman of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, the Senator from Alaska, for conducting a 
process for developing this legislation and this substitute, in what I 
believe to be an unprecedented character of openness and willingness to 
hear and respond to the concerns of our opponents. There is simply, Mr. 
President, no legitimate remaining basis for the administration's 
opposition to this legislation. I urge the President of the United 
States not to fight this Congress. This Congress will soon express its 
will on the issue and, most likely, the outcome will be the same broad, 
bipartisan consensus that we developed in the last Congress.
  Mr. President, I said a few days ago on this floor that this 
legislation was

[[Page S3112]]

good science and good engineering and good technology, and that there 
would be one simple reason to oppose it, and that would be political. I 
stand here today with the amendments the chairman has accepted and the 
character of this legislation when it comes to final passage. I now can 
say in fact that there are no impediments for this administration to 
accept this legislation, except for politics, and politics alone.
  I am amazed that the President of the United States can say that, 
because of his politics, he is willing to ask the American people to 
pay an additional $80 billion--or potentially that amount--in a 
negative environmental situation, when we are standing here today with 
a very positive environmental move that would cost less than about $3 
billion to develop an interim storage facility. This facility would 
allow the Congress of the United States and the administration to say 
to the American people that we will abide by the law, we will adhere to 
the courts and the laws that have already been passed by past 
Congresses to develop a deep geologic repository, and we will do so in 
a timely fashion. That is the issue before the Congress when it 
considers S. 104.
  I hope my colleagues will join with us in a resounding bipartisan 
vote as we deal with this critical national major environmental issue. 
We have worked to resolve it in a balanced approach that all can agree 
with. I think the efforts of Senator Murkowski will be demonstrated in 
a vote that we see cast on this legislation tomorrow.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, in 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act and tasked the Federal Government with the handling of spent 
nuclear waste from commercial powerplants and military usages. Despite 
the clear congressional intent of the act, the Department of Energy has 
avoided and delayed positive action regarding temporary and permanent 
storage of nuclear waste.
  The 1982 act called for a permanent waste repository to be built by 
1998. But DOE now says the earliest a repository will be ready is 2010. 
Given 15 years of relative inaction, this delay and avoidance history 
does not engender faith that the current administration will address 
this issue in a timely manner absent congressional action. Regrettably, 
the country that harnessed energy of the atom can't seem to accomplish 
the basic task of storing and disposing of waste.
  The Federal Government promised nuclear energy consumers that it 
would develop a plan to dispose of the waste. Congress obligated the 
Federal Government to begin the waste collection program in 1998. A 
Federal court of appeals ruled in 1996 that this is a binding legal 
obligation.
  The Federal Government, therefore, has a binding, legal obligation to 
pick up the nuclear waste scattered throughout the Nation's coastal 
communities, farm lands and industrial centers. It must remove used 
nuclear fuel from 34 States that now store used fuel at nuclear 
powerplants that were never intended to hold the waste until the end of 
time.
  Due to the foresight of 15 Senators who reported the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1997 out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
and in particularly its architects, Senators Frank Murkowski and Larry 
Craig, we are here today to put this program back on the road to 
recovering used fuel from commercial powerplants and DOE facilities 
that store high-level radioactive waste from defense-related projects. 
In 30 years of operation, that waste has amounted to a relatively small 
sum, given that nuclear electricity powers 65 million homes at any 
given time in the United States. All of the used fuel produced from 
nuclear electricity during its history, if stacked end to end, would 
span a football field to a depth of almost 4 yards.
  While a permanent repository is the ultimate requirement, no one can 
legitimately deny that an interim storage facility is an absolute 
necessity.
  Let's talk for a minute about the cost to the public. America's 
electricity consumers have relied upon the availability of nuclear 
energy. But such consumption did not occur in a vacuum and without 
cost. These energy users have already committed nearly $13 billion to 
pay for the Federal waste disposal program--a staggering figure 
considering there's nothing to show for such costs to date except for a 
few feasibility studies. The bill continues to climb, even as the 
Department of Energy says it will be unable to start taking used fuel 
by the 1998 deadline.
  Some States are so frustrated by the Federal Government's failure on 
this program that they are considering withholding their share of the 
more than $600 million a year that flows from electricity customers to 
the U.S. Treasury. How can we blame them?
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, would put an end to 
bureaucratic delays and spiraling program costs by integrating three 
components:
  First, a Federal storage facility for centralized management of used 
fuel until a permanent disposal facility is ready;
  Second, a continued scientific study on a permanent disposal site at 
Yucca Mountain, NV; and,
  Third, a transportation network to move used fuel safely from nuclear 
powerplants, research reactors and DOE sites to storage and disposal 
facilities.
  It has been argued by some that we cannot safely transport spent or 
used nuclear fuel waste from nuclear powerplants to a central storage 
facility. Certainly the naysayers recognize that we do not intend to 
throw used nuclear fuel on a truckbed or in a boxcar.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rigid standards about the types 
of containers it permits nuclear waste to be transported in. All such 
containers must receive their stamp of approval. Before such approval, 
containers must undergo an onslaught of tests without breaking open and 
allowing radiation to escape. They must successively withstand a 30-
foot drop onto a flat, unyielding surface; a drop of 40 inches onto a 
steel spike; and a fully engulfing fire burning at 1,475 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
  For proof of the canisters' performance, look at the safety record of 
the 2,400-plus shipments of used nuclear fuel that have taken place in 
the United States during the past three decades. Not one used fuel 
container has ever ruptured during those trips. Radioactive fuel has 
never been released, harmed the environment, or caused any injury or 
public safety threat.
  By shipping to a single storage spot, we are reducing the level of 
risk. A remote, desert location would provide an added margin of 
safety. Logically, used fuel can be managed more efficiently and 
effectively at an individual site than it can at multiple sites.
  S. 104 goes further to alleviate safety concerns by ensuring that 
Federal funds and resources are channeled to State and tribal officials 
for public safety training to handle and manage used fuel long before 
the first shipment enters their area.
  Many of my colleagues know what it's like to have nuclear waste 
sitting in their backyards. Pennsylvania, for instance, currently 
stores 2,920 metric tons of uranium at nine nuclear powerplant sites 
next door to dairy farms and the fourth largest apple producing region 
in the country. Failure to adopt S. 104 would be irresponsible in the 
face of current storage arrangements and limitations. By passing S. 
104, my colleagues can prove our resolve to end the Nation's nuclear 
waste dilemma.
  Nuclear waste disposal must not become mired in petty politics. There 
is no better time to act on nuclear waste disposal than now. It's the 
only prudent and economic course. The greater delay, the greater the 
costs to taxpayers and electricity consumers. A new user fee mechanism 
proposed in S. 104 would continue funding nuclear waste disposal on a 
self-financing basis and adapt the nuclear waste fund to recent changes 
in the Federal budget process.
  Funds originally intended to cover the cost of the nuclear waste 
disposal program have been diverted elsewhere to offset deficit 
spending. Detouring waste fund payments may help counteract the 
deficit, but it does little to further the Federal Government's 
obligation to managed used nuclear fuel. In

[[Page S3113]]

reality, even though consumers have committed more than $13 billion to 
the nuclear waste fund, the Energy Department has spent only about $6 
billion. That's about 30 cents on the dollar being spent on the waste 
program. In America, we live under the premise that you ought to get 
what you pay for. Our constituents aren't getting what they paid for.
  Inaction on the part of Congress in ordering the Energy Department to 
act could force other complications, including whether State utility 
regulators will permit additional on-site storage. In Minnesota, the 
State legislature was forced to settle the issue and established new, 
high-priced requirements for the utility to meet before securing more 
waste containers. That costly burden may force utilities to consider 
shutting down nuclear plants prematurely. Is nuclear electricity to 
become a casualty of misguided DOE planning or continue, through this 
legislation, to be a reliable, clean energy source.
  Don't forget that this legislation isn't just about finding a 
suitable spot for commercial nuclear waste. States like Idaho must 
worry about permanent storage for high-level radioactive waste from 
defense-related activities and used fuel from research reactors. Idaho 
is host to a wide range of defense facility wastes at the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory. Cleanup of INEL is likely to take 
decades. But how does the Federal Government plan to clean up this site 
if it has no place to dispose of the high-level waste? Leaving it in 
the vicinity of the Snake River and Sun Valley hardly qualifies as 
proper action on the part of the Federal Government.
  That's why S. 104 calls for DOE to factor those types of used fuel 
into its capacity at an interim storage facility and ultimately at a 
permanent underground repository. This amount of waste from defense 
activities, naval reactors, universities, and foreign research 
reactors, at a minimum, must be no less than 5 percent of total 
acceptance during a given year.
  At Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the Department of Energy 
collects fuel from naval and research reactor projects like 
Connecticut, and Illinois' Argonne National Laboratory, New Mexico, 
Maryland, Colorado, and California's Aerotest and General Atomics 
sites.
  DOE is also sending used nuclear fuel to Idaho from foreign research 
reactors. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory will accept used fuel 
assemblies from the Pacific rim this year, even though the Federal 
Government will not commit to taking used fuel from commercial reactors 
as it is obligated to next year. And while our taxpaying, electricity 
consuming constituents are shouldering the entire burden to develop a 
national waste disposal plan, the Department of Energy and the Clinton 
administration are willing to have our constituents assume the full 
cost of transporting and managing the spent nuclear fuel from foreign 
countries with research reactors that can't afford to pay for the 
service. Why should we be debating this storage issue with Clinton 
administration opposition when the Department of Energy's position is 
to help foreign countries with their nuclear waste storage problems 
before that Department is willing to address our country's own storage 
problems in a meaningful way?
  Most importantly, perhaps, let me say that this legislation is 
without question the most environmentally sound bill this Congress has 
the opportunity to approve.
  S. 104 fully complies with the National Environmental Policy Act. It 
calls for environmental impact statements for an interim central 
storage facility and a permanent, underground repository. Judicial 
review of both impact statements ensures acceptable health and safety 
standards. It is designed to choose transportation routes that minimize 
impact on the environment and population centers--by avoiding densely 
populated areas and shipping only along specified rail and highway 
routes. States can also participate in the route selection.
  By finding a suitable place to store nuclear waste, it ensures that 
Americans will continue to enjoy clean, cost-effective nuclear 
electricity that is part of the U.S. diverse blend of energy sources. 
Since 1973, our Nation's nuclear powerplants have reduce the cumulative 
amount of emissions from carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by 
1.9 billion metric tons of carbon. In fact, it many reasonably be 
asserted that S. 104 furthers the Clinton administration's climate 
change action plan, which is intended to achieve a Presidentially 
imposed U.S. limit to carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. 
That's a reduction of 108 million metric tons of carbon.
  Madam President, I would like to address our attempts to work with 
the Clinton administration and the Department of Energy to reach an 
agreement on how we can expeditiously proceed to resolve this problem. 
The plain fact of the matter is that little progress was made during 
the past 4 years, and the current position of the administration holds 
little hope for much progress during the President's current term of 
office. The administration and the Department of Energy continue to 
only pay lip service to the problem without offering any meaningful 
alternative to the solutions proposed in S. 104.
  S. 104 is the fulfillment of the promise of Congress to the American 
people and will begin the process of putting in place storage 
facilities for spent nuclear fuel. We must continue to find solutions 
to potential problems created in the 20th century before we begin to 
build bridges to the 21st century. In preparing for our future, we must 
clearly remained focused on the present.
  The fact is, simply stated, that this country has 109 nuclear 
powerplants operating and providing more than 20 percent of our 
electricity in a process that produces no harmful air emissions. We 
have the responsibility, in return, to ensure that the nuclear waste 
from those facilities and from defense-related activities is 
safeguarded and managed in a reasonable and reliable manner. This isn't 
a decision to impose upon future generations. It is a decision that is 
our responsibility to make now.
  In closing, I would like to commend Senators Murkowski, Craig, and 
all those who cosponsored and worked for the passage of S. 104 for 
their diligence in pressing forward and recognizing the importance of 
achieving bipartisan support to enact meaningful reform for the benefit 
of the American people. Finally it appears that we are going to pass 
the legislation which would carry out the intent of that act. If we do 
not, it would be another 15 years before we would get a final result 
and billions more dollars. We need to act on this legislation. I am 
assured that the House is going to act this year, and we can send this 
legislation to the President for his hoped-for signature or his veto, 
if he feels so inclined. But I think it is a very important issue. This 
is in my opinion the most important environmental issue that faces this 
country. We have nuclear waste in temporary sites in cooling ponds in 
States, buried in South Carolina, Vermont, in my own State of 
Mississippi, Idaho, Minnesota, and from the shores of the Atlantic to 
the shores of the Pacific. This waste is there and we need action. We 
need it now.

  This legislation has been carefully drafted. The concerns that have 
been raised about transportation are properly addressed here.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this very carefully 
crafted legislation.

                          ____________________