[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H9657-H9706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 283 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1270.
{time} 1648
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1270) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, with Mr.
McInnis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] each will control 30 minutes. The
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair understands that the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Dan
Schaefer] will be recognized for the time of the gentleman from
Virginia, [Mr. Bliley], and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Colorado, [Mr. Dan Schaefer].
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
(Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, today the House of
Representatives is considering H.R. 1270, legislation to repeal the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and replace it with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1997. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1270 was approved by the
Committee on Commerce by a wide margin of 43 to 3, enjoys broad
bipartisan support, and was carefully crafted over a 2\1/2\-year
period.
H.R. 1270 achieves the following four principal goals: number one,
the acceptance of nuclear waste at an interim storage facility in the
year 2002; number two, it continues progress toward permanent disposal
of nuclear waste at a geological repository; number three, it improves
safety by consolidating storage of nuclear waste; and, four, it
enhances consumer protection by ending the diversion of consumers' fees
for other Federal programs.
Mr. Chairman, last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit held in the Indiana Michigan Power Company that DOE
has a legal obligation to begin acceptance of nuclear waste in January
of 1998. It is impossible for DOE to fulfill its legal duty to begin
acceptance in 1998, and under current programs that the DOE has, it
will not be able to begin acceptance until the year 2010.
H.R. 1270 enables DOE to fulfill its legal obligation to begin
acceptance at an interim storage facility in 2002, an earlier date that
permits time for the NRC for licensing of this particular facility.
The overriding goal of the nuclear waste program since 1983 has been
providing for permanent disposal of nuclear waste in a geological
repository. That goal is strengthened by H.R. 1270. Congress has always
sought to avoid a competition for funding between an interim storage
facility and a repository. H.R. 1270 avoids such competition by
providing ample funds to pursue both programs. According to DOE, the
funding provisions of H.R. 1270 provide sufficient funds to provide for
interim storage while maintaining the progress towards development of a
permanent repository.
H.R. 1270 has protections designed to assure the interim storage
facility cannot become a de facto permanent facility. There are
statutory limits to the nuclear waste that can be stored in the interim
facility, 40,000 metric tons, a small portion of the nuclear waste that
will be generated, which is 115,000 metric tons.
The commitment to the repository in H.R. 1270 is reflected in the
funding
[[Page H9658]]
mechanism of the bill. H.R. 1270 provides for a fee that must average 1
mill, one-tenth of a cent, between 1999 and the year 2010, but can
fluctuate to match program needs. Without this flexibility in the fee
mechanism, funding for the repository may not be assured.
Maintaining the commitment to the repository is critical to the
States that have significant amounts of defense nuclear waste at DOE
nuclear facilities: Washington State, Idaho, South Carolina. Most of
these defense wastes cannot be accommodated at an interim storage
facility. They will have to be deposited in a repository of this
nature. Continued progress on a repository is crucial for these
particular States.
During the hearings held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of
the Committee on Commerce on nuclear waste legislation, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission testified that on-site storage of nuclear waste
is safe, but centralized storage of nuclear waste offers even higher
safety margins than what we have today.
Right now, nuclear waste is spread all over the country in scores of
sites in 35 States. Consolidating nuclear waste at one site will
improve safety and provide for the enhanced protection and the public
health and the public safety.
Since enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, consumers
have contributed $13 billion, $13 billion, Mr. Chairman, towards the
nuclear waste program. Only a portion of these sums, $6 billion, has
been spent on the program itself. The rest has been effectively
diverted to other Federal programs. This diversion has gotten so bad in
recent years that only 15 cents, 15 cents of every dollar paid by
consumers, has been spent on the nuclear waste program.
We need to protect the consumers and stop the diversion of nuclear
waste fees to fund other Federal programs. H.R. 1270 protects the
consumers in two ways: changing the fee to an annually adjusted fee
that matches the appropriations level, and thereby eliminating the
diversion of funds to other programs; and capping the fee at 1 mill,
one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour. Under H.R. 1270, every penny of
the fees paid by the consumers in the future will be spent on this
particular program.
H.R. 1270 is consistent with the budget laws and does not violate
pay-go requirements. It was not a simple matter to resolve the
budgetary concerns related to the bill reported by the Committee on
Commerce in 1995. The committee went through a great deal of effort to
resolve budgetary concerns for one reason, a conviction that the
diversion of fees paid by the consumers must be halted. The current fee
is considered a mandatory receipt, and deleting this fee was deemed to
reduce those receipts. The fee in H.R. 1270, since it is annually
adjusted to match appropriation levels, is considered a discretionary
fee.
The committee developed an offset for the loss of the mandatory
receipts resulting from the switch from the flat mill fee established
by the 1982 Act to the annually adjusted fee in H.R. 1270. The offset
the committee adopted was requiring the payment of one-time fees owed
by 13 utilities by the end of fiscal year 2002. These fees were
required to be paid by the 1982 Act upon acceptance of nuclear spent
fuel generated by these individual utilities. Requiring the payment of
outstanding one-time fees in fiscal year 2002 was necessary to assure
that H.R. 1270 does not violate budgetary pay-go limitations. That was
the only reason the committee adopted this provision.
Opponents of H.R. 1270 have argued that the bill imposes tremendous
burdens on taxpayers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The
nuclear waste program has always been funded by consumers through fees
on electric generation by nuclear power plants. Consumers will continue
to fund the program through fees provided by H.R. 1270. The only cost,
the only cost under H.R. 1270, is the cost of disposing of the defense
waste. It is wholly appropriate that taxpayers fund this cost, since
the benefits of our defense activities accrue to all taxpayers, not to
just the consumers of utilities with nuclear power plants.
{time} 1700
I understand the opponents of H.R. 1270 also assert that this bill
preempts State and local transportation and safety requirements. That
assertion also is completely false.
State and local governments are preempted from establishing
inconsistent transportation safety requirements by existing Federal
transportation laws, not in H.R. 1270.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to certainly support H.R.
1270.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as cosponsor of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear
Waste Act of 1997, a bipartisan bill that represents a lot of hard work
on the part of members of the Committee on Commerce and the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power to find what the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, has deemed ``a temporary solution to a
critical and immediate problem,'' and that is the storage of our
nation's spent nuclear fuel.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is certainly necessary. For one reason it is
outrageous that the Department of Energy has failed in its quest,
failed in the direction that this Congress has given them. This
legislation is necessary because of that failure to find a permanent
repository by the year 1998.
So far DOE has fallen behind on its responsibility in that it
predicts a disposal facility will not be operational until the fiscal
year 2010, which is absolutely unacceptable. That is at the earliest,
they say. In the meantime, ratepayers have paid in billions of dollars
to the Nuclear Waste Fund, with only about 15 cents on the dollar
actually used for radioactive waste disposal programs.
This is unacceptable and, frankly, it is unconscionable. If my
colleagues would just be logical about it, for a lot of years nuclear
power has been a source of electricity supply across our country and we
have known for many years that we have to find a long-term solution to
the storage of nuclear waste that is the by-product of that industry.
If they are going to use it, it has got to be stored. That is as
logical as it can be.
DOE had a commitment to construct a permanent repository by 1998, but
they have not lived up to that commitment, and that is why we are here
today. The lack of a storage facility is placing very unrealistic
demands on our Nation's nuclear power plants. Failure to act now could
lead to the premature closing of some of our nuclear power plants and
force additional costs upon them for on-site storage.
It is talk about nuclear as in energy, and there are some here who
are just opposed to nuclear energy, period. The gentleman from Ohio is
honest about that, and that is part of his speech and time that he will
be using. But we see people out by nuclear plants that have signs that
say ``No Nukes.'' I go to schools and I say, ``Children, how many of
you are for nuclear energy?'' And they all hold up their hands that
they are opposed to it. But when they hear the hard cold facts that we
sent Japan searching for energy, in World War II looking for energy,
and that there is no question that President Bush sent 400,000 of our
kids over to that desert looking for energy, and when we point out to
schoolchildren that, yes, energy or lack of energy causes wars and
explain that to them, then we tell them if we solve the energy problem,
which this is a thrust in that direction, that those signs that they
hold up saying ``No Nukes'' can say ``No Wars.'' Then when asked the
question again, the hands do not go up because it is properly explained
to them.
I think during the year, DOE has made some progress on the excavation
of the main tunnel at the Yucca Mountain facility, but we have got to
encourage them to accelerate construction of the permanent facility. In
the meantime we cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot afford to wait
another 12 years. It is important that we act now.
This Congress just voted a few moments ago overwhelmingly not to let
any amendment sent up, frivolous or otherwise, or sincere amendment or
whatever, block the progress of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia,
[[Page H9659]]
Mr. Bliley, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, ranking
member, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Upton, all of the other members for their hard work,
even some of those who were opposed to the bill who have sent up good
suggestions, some of them that we have taken and all of them that we
considered.
But this thing started back in 1982. There was no Nuclear Policy Act.
It said simply: ``Ratepayers, you give us the money and we will pick up
your spent fuel.'' And we did that. They have given us $13 billion. We
have only spent $6 billion. In 1987, Yucca Mountain was designated as
the only place for the DOE to study for permanent repository and a vote
in the House and Senate took place.
I think in the appropriations bill in 1987, it may have been on
December 21, 1987, the vote was for the fiscal 1998 budget
reconciliation conference report, H.R. 3545. That vote then was 237 to
181. And it is unfortunate that no one wants this area. It is not
politically selected by anyone.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
The gentleman is doing what he ought to do. The gentleman is
representing his district, representing his State. But this was
considered at one time to be in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Had it been
selected, I would understand that we would have to have an act, but I
would probably be in the same position that these two gentleman are in
who represent the State of Nevada.
But the hard cold fact is that the Nevada test site has been
dedicated to nuclear uses for over 50 years. We have had 975 nuclear
explosions there in the desert. They have studied Deaf Smith County;
they turned that back. Since then, we have studied Yucca Mountain for
$6 billion dollars worth and still the repository will not be ready
until 2010 or 2015. I say start it in 1998. That is what this bill
says. ``Light up or light out.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as George Gershwin might say, ``It's very clear,
plutonium is here to stay. Not for a year, but forever and a day. The
Rockies may crumble, Yucca may tumble, they're only made of clay. But
plutonium is here to stay.''
That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. It is here to stay; 10,000 years,
20,000 years. Nobody knows how long. This bill presumes that it is very
safe. ``Do not worry about it: We are picking Nevada,'' says the
Congress. ``We do not have any geologic or scientific evidence that
supports our decision, but we have decided that we are getting it off
of all the sites that it has been generated at and we are moving it to
Nevada.''
Mr. Chairman, in this legislation, we are going to suspend a lot of
protections which we give to Americans. We are going to decide here
today that each American could be exposed to 100 millirems of
radiation. Now, in Sweden the standard is 10. In Switzerland it is 10.
In Canada it is 1. Even at the New Mexico waste isolation pilot
project, it is 15 millirems. But here, we are going to say that
for every 286 persons exposed, that one of them will contract a cancer.
We are going to decide that today. We are going to establish a level
that does not allow the EPA to set these standards. We will decide
them. That is what this bill says, and that is wrong.
What else does the bill do? It says that it will be transported
through 40 States of the Union in trucks and railroad cars, totally
indemnifying the trucking and railroad firms from any liability, even
if they are engaged in willful misconduct, gross negligence. They are
not liable.
Now what disincentive as a result exists for these contractors to
ensure that they have not hired drivers who drink excessively in the
evening, take antidepressants and then jump behind the wheel and drive
100 miles an hour through tunnels in highly populated population areas
in our country? None. This bill allows that to happen. They are not
liable.
And who pays if there is an accident? Believe it or not, it is the
ratepayers who will pick up the tab, the very people who may have been
victimized by an accident created in their neighborhoods.
And fourth, we have the Holy Roman Empire provision on NEPA. They
used to say that the Holy Roman Empire was an oxymoron. It was not
really holy, Roman, or an empire. Well, that is what we have got here
with the Environmental Impact Statement that is built into this bill.
It really does not evaluate the environment, it does not measure the
impact it is going to have on a community, and it is not much of a
statement. But at least we have got the words in there.
Then we have the ``interim storage'' oxymoron. We have put a cap on
how much money we are going to raise from now on from nuclear utilities
for permanent and interim storage. We are going to spend most of it on
the interim storage. We are going to build something that is above
ground and interim, and we are going to pretend that we are going to
come back and still have a permanent waste repository built in this
country.
A vote for this bill is a vote to kill a permanent repository in the
United States permanently. This is an interim storage bill to just get
it off the books from the utility executives of today, and forget about
any permanent solution.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members who are listening to this
debate vote for the amendments to protect the American public.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Cooksey].
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the ratepayers of Louisiana have paid more than $134
million into the Nuclear Waste Fund only to see that money used for
purposes other than those specified by the law which mandated the
collections. For that reason, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished floor manager to propound a few questions on the bill
before us, which I have cosponsored.
As I understand the situation, one of the foremost improvements of
the bill over current law are provisions which would ensure that monies
collected from ratepayers will be used for the purposes for which they
were intended under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act rather than being
captured and used for other purposes because of discretionary spending
limits imposed after the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, is this a fair representation?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOKSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is
certainly correct. As is more fully explained in the committee's
report, the basic inequity arises from the fact that the current 1 mill
fee assessed against nuclear generated electricity is treated as a
mandatory receipt to the Federal Government, and all programmatic
expenses are treated as discretionary spending.
Now, as a result, spending for the waste program from the Nuclear
Waste Fund is thus counted against various discretionary spending caps
enacted after 1982 as a means of controlling overall Federal spending.
As a result, while nearly $12 billion has been generated in fees and
interest, only a little over $4.8 billion has been spent on the
program.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I further understand
that any effort, other than the one proposed in the bill, to create a
situation where revenues and expenditures stand on the same side of the
ledger, allowing annual revenues to offset annual outlays, would result
in a technical violation of the scoring rules of the Congressional
Budget Office and the Committee on the Budget.
The committee, therefore, had to find an accounting offset and the
source of funds chosen for the offset was the onetime user fees owed by
certain utilities under contracts entered into with the Department of
Energy after enactment of the original 1982 statute. Is this an
accurate presentation?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would
[[Page H9660]]
continue to yield, I would say to the gentleman, that is accurate. For
example, under the solution to this problem chosen by the committee in
the last Congress, the termination of the current mandatory 1 mill fee
and the institution in its stead of a discretionary user fee, we were
informed that we had violated the budget rules because the Treasury
would no longer be receiving these revenues on the mandatory receipts
side of the budget, even though the Treasury would be receiving user
fee revenues on the discretionary side of the budget as an offset for
appropriations to fund the waste program.
Further, as the committee report indicates, 13 utilities availed
themselves on the contractual option offered by the Department of
Energy to pay fees assessed against spent nuclear fuel they generated
prior to the effective date of the 1982 act.
{time} 1715
By requiring these fees to be paid prior to the expiration of fiscal
year 2002, the committee was able to generate a $2.7 billion revenue
offset which, as the committee report indicates, was necessary in order
to assure that the legislation does not violate the budgetary pay-as-
you-go limitations.
Our understanding was confirmed in the letter of September 25, 1997,
by CBO Director O'Neill to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] as
well as the September 18, 1997, letter from the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. COOKSEY. Is it true, Mr. Chairman, that such one-time fee
payments will be credited to the balance of the Nuclear Waste Fund and
that the program will largely rely on annual user fees to fund both
continuing progress on the repository at Yucca Mountain and the interim
self-storage facility mandated by the bill?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. My colleague again is correct, Mr.
Chairman. As the committee report states, it appears that the annual
user fee that averages one mill per kilowatt hour will be sufficient to
continue development of the repository and acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel and high level radioactive waste at the interim storage facility.
Information supplied to the committee by DOE indicates that in order to
achieve these goals, a fee of one mill per kilowatt hour will be
sufficient to maintain progress on the repository and develop an
interim storage facility.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, is it not the case that contracts entered
into between utilities and the Department of Energy prior to the
effective date of this act will continue in force unless both parties
agree to a modification?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Section
2 of H.R. 1270 provides that such contracts shall continue in effect
under this act in accordance with their terms except to the extent that
the contracts may have been modified by the parties to that contract.
Mr. COOKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], former long-time chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and present ranking member of the
Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, there is a funny thing about nuclear waste
and other kinds of waste, too. Everybody wants somebody to pick it up
and they never want them to put it down anywhere.
We have a massive problem in this Nation. How are we going to resolve
the problem we have with regard to high level and low level nuclear
waste? The answer is, we have got to begin somewhere.
The bill before us is a good bill. Every Member of Congress who has
dealt with or thought about this issue has been frustrated about the
fact that we have not dealt with the problem. Money collected for the
purpose of dealing with the question of storage has been dissipated by
the budgeteers and by the Committee on Appropriations. This bill
addresses that problem. It solves it.
The bill goes further. The bill addresses the problem of where we are
going to set up an interim storage place. That is important. I will
assure my colleagues that it is interim because, in the process of
considering this legislation, we have seen to it that there is not
enough money for them to store enough of this waste that it can become
a permanent storage facility. I am aware of the concerns of my
colleagues on that matter because they are important.
The bill does not impose any new protections on the carriers or the
transporters of nuclear waste that have not been a part of the
protection of every nuclear contractor since the beginning of the
program for nuclear power in this country, same as under Price-
Anderson.
I assure my colleagues that the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Energy will see to it that this is moved safely. If
Members look at the casks and the carriers and the rules, they will
find that they afford an abundance of protections. I would think that
probably the worst thing that would happen, if we have some kind of an
accident involving one of these vehicles, we would find that they had
cracked the pavement because that is how strongly constructed the
carriage devices and how strongly constructed the containers are.
We have to resolve the problem. The bill provides reasonable
environmental protections for everybody who is concerned, the best that
could be crafted. But it resolves an issue which is a matter of great
concern to the Nation.
I am troubled that my friends from Nevada are not pleased with this
legislation. The hard fact of the matter is, the studies that have gone
on so far have come up with about the best place. That is an area of
which we have had not only extensive studies of geology and safety and
terrain stability and water, but also an area in which there have been
extensive use of nuclear explosives, I think unwisely, but nonetheless
have done so. And the result will be that the best possible protection
for everybody can be done and will be done under this legislation.
I want to commend my dear friend, the ranking minority member, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the distinguished gentleman from New
York [Mr. Towns], the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer], the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Upton] and, of course, the chairman of the full committee for the work
which they have done to bring us to the point where we are today. This
is a good bill. It is a step along a long and difficult route to
resolve an important question which is troubling everybody and which is
causing huge problems for the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have long been frustrated with the pace of DOE's
efforts, and the lack of any meaningful progress, toward opening a
permanent repository for nuclear waste. I have spoken previously about
my keen disappointment that there appears to be no way to recover the
billions--literally billions--of dollars in ratepayer contributions to
the Nuclear Waste Fund which the Budget Committee has siphoned off and
used for wholly unrelated purposes.
I regret to say that, despite our best efforts here today, this
Congress is not in a position to remedy all of the problems afflicting
DOE's waste program. Nor can we guarantee that the repository will open
on a date certain.
However, the bill before us is a marked improvement over current law.
It is a bipartisan bill that passed the committee by a vote of 43 to 3.
At this time let me thank Chairman Tom Bliley for his hard work on this
important issue. I also want to congratulate my colleagues--Chairman
Schaefer, Ranking Member Hall, and Congressmen Towns, Crapo, Hastert,
and Upton--for their contribution in working through some of the hard
questions and introducing H.R. 1270. This bill incorporates the
following important provisions:
First, and foremost, the bill reforms the funding basis for the waste
program, and ensures that every dollar contributed by ratepayers will
be spent on the nuclear waste program--and nothing else. By
transforming utility payments for nuclear waste into a user fee, the
substitute puts an end to the diversion of these funds and ensures they
will be applied exclusively for their intended purpose--the Yucca
Mountain project.
[[Page H9661]]
Second, the substitute authorizes an appropriate interim storage
facility. This facility will open in 2002, and will accept waste at
nearly twice the rate DOE projects under its acceptance schedule. This
is the least we can do, given the tardiness of the current program.
At the same time, however, it is essential that interim storage not
become a de facto substitute for the permanent repository. In
recognition of this, the substitute limits the capacity of the interim
storage facility to about half of what the repository will accept--so
that a healthy constituency remains for completing work on a permanent
disposal facility.
Third, we cannot escape the fact that building two facilities
simultaneously costs more than building one. If we direct DOE to build
interim storage at the same time it is building the repository, we also
must ensure adequate funding for both facilities.
Therefore, the bill permits an increase in the annual 1 mill per
kilowatt-hour fee during peak construction years. However, ratepayers
will pay no more in the long run because any such increase must be
offset by lower fees in other years--so that the average annual fee
over the next 12 years is no more than 1 mill. In order to provide
additional assurance to ratepayers, utilities, State regulators that
annual use fees will not spike dramatically, the bill imposes a 1.5
mill annual cap.
In summary, this bipartisan bill will make a number of important
changes in the nuclear waste program that will protect our consumers
and our environment. I urge its passage.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
support of this important piece of legislation, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1997. This is a very important issue to Idaho because, as
I think most people now understand, Idaho has been the recipient of a
significant amount of the spent nuclear fuel in the country to be
stored on a supposedly temporary basis, but the progress toward
permanent storage needs to be resolved and the interim storage facility
issue needs to be resolved.
Idaho currently has 260 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and 10,000
cubic meters of high level nuclear waste, and we must proceed with
resolving this issue to protect the geologic areas of Idaho that are
now jeopardized by the permanent, apparently permanent storage of the
waste in those locations.
The point I would like to make is that Idaho is not unique here.
Perhaps it is Idaho that has had a significantly larger amount of the
spent nuclear fuel shipped to it, even though it has not generated any.
But this bill is very much proenvironment because it removes nuclear
spent fuel and high level nuclear waste from over 100 sites to only one
remote site.
My friend from Massachusetts said that, in his argument against this
bill, that we will see spent nuclear fuel transported through 40
different States. I think a better way to point it out is that we will
see spent nuclear fuel transported out of about 40 States and out of
over 100 sites to only one remote site where the location has been
designed to have the least amount of environmental impact.
With regard to that transportation issue, the regulatory regime for
radioactive material transport has worked well in this country. As the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] just said, it will be transported
safely.
Over the past 30 years there were 2,500 shipments of spent nuclear
fuel in the United States. Since 1957, there have been 667 shipments of
Navy spent fuel over 1 million miles. And in the last 22 years, the
Department of Energy has transported nuclear weapons and special
materials nearly 100 million miles, and all of that has been done
without radioactive release.
There has been an attack saying that there will be insufficient
environmental analysis. Again, the true facts are that H.R. 1270
requires an environmental impact statement before every major Federal
action in the Nuclear Waste Program. It is true that it says that
alternate sites are not to be evaluated, but that is because this
Congress is designating the evaluating site. And those who would say
that a full environmental impact analysis is not being made are simply
mischaracterizing the terms and provisions of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is critical to this country. Last
year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held, in
an important case, that DOE had a legal obligation to begin accepting
this material by January of 1998. That cannot be done unless this type
of legislation is moved properly into place to provide for the interim
storage of spent nuclear fuel. This is important, critical legislation
to the country. I encourage its adoption by the House.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich] is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a few
misconceptions that I have heard during this debate.
First of all, the American people were never asked to build nuclear
powerplants. The industry made the decision to go ahead. There was
never a vote on it by the American people. The industry decided to
build nuclear powerplants.
When the nuclear power plants were built, there were no plans by the
industry at that time to talk about how the waste would be dealt with.
There are myths about the disposal of nuclear waste. First of all, we
cannot dispose of nuclear waste. It lasts for thousands and thousands
of years, something the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]
pointed out. I would like to add that we cannot move it either, because
once it is on a site, that site is contaminated. We cannot transport it
out of anywhere. Nuclear power sites essentially are scorched Earth.
That land will never be used again for anything.
Right now there are nearly 109 nuclear dump sites in America. When
the waste is moved to Yucca Mountain, there will be 110 contaminated
sites, not 109 less. When it will be moved from Yucca Mountain, then
there will be 111 contaminated sites.
Nuclear power promised power too cheap to meter. It delivered
electricity too expensive to use. It promised safe electricity. Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl put the lie to that.
The nuclear power industry has caused utility rates to go up across
this country. In my State of Ohio in the northern part of our State,
utility rates are twice as high as they are in the southern part of the
State. Everyone in this country who has nuclear power as a source of
energy knows why their electric bills are so high.
Now the ratepayers are being told that they will pay more under this
bill. Utility rates will go up even higher, and why? To bail out an
industry that has built plants that have been neither used nor useful.
The nuclear power industry has been holding up utility deregulation
until they can dump the responsibility for nuclear waste, re: that
stranded investment, on to the residential ratepayers and the small
businesses and the taxpayers. This bill is the first step.
{time} 1730
The waste belongs to nuclear power plants. But by law, when this bill
is passed, the Department of Energy takes title. And who is the
Department of Energy? The taxpayers of the United States of America. It
is then the waste belonging to the people, their responsibility. If
there is an accident, the taxpayers will end up paying for it. The
waste will last for thousands of years. The taxpayers will end up
paying to monitor it. The taxpayers will end up having to pay to
isolate it from the biosphere. The taxpayers. The taxpayers. The
taxpayers will buy a nuclear pig-in-a-poke waste dump and be stuck with
the bill for it forever.
There is no known technology which can safely isolate the waste from
the biosphere. The transportation of waste through populated
communities, 50 million Americans will live within a half mile of the
nuclear transportation routes, ensures that there will be a significant
hazard to major populated areas.
The safety issues have not been adequately met in this legislation.
There were amendments that were never even able to get out of the
Committee on Rules that would have protected major population areas.
This bill will, I believe, begin the dawning of new civic activism in
the United States from people who are fed up with a nuclear industry
which has in some cases ruined our economy because of high electric
rates, passed the bill on to the
[[Page H9662]]
ratepayers, and now wants to stick the American taxpayers with hundreds
of billions of dollars of debt.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much
time we all have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall has 18\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young has 10 minutes
remaining; and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, might I ask the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Hall] if he has some more speakers here?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, 50 years ago in April 1947, a ship in the
Texas City harbor bearing a cargo of now what stands before us all,
after Oklahoma City, as an indelible memory of ammonium nitrate
fertilizer was destined for war-torn Europe. That morning that ship
caught fire a little after 9 a.m.
The Texas City disaster, as it has come to be known, happened as the
ship exploded. Within moments, the Monsanto Chemical Plant that was
nearby was in flames as entire buildings collapsed, trapping people
inside. Fires quickly spread to the refineries that made up the Texas
City industrial complex, with the force of a small nuclear weapon,
setting off a tidal wave, causing a disaster that resulted in nearly
600 deaths in a town of about 16,000.
We have come a very long way in 50 years. Fortunately, we have
learned from our mistakes. We understand the dangers of densely
populated areas, and we have gotten very good at taking the right
precautions and anticipating as many scenarios as possible.
But nothing is ever 100 percent foolproof, no matter how close we may
come. If my colleagues believe that transporting the Nation's spent
nuclear fuel to an interim storage facility makes sense, then they
would have to agree, whether they agree with that principle or not, it
should be done as safely as possible. If the unforeseeable or
improbable does happen somehow, we all want the risks to human life or
health to be as low as can possibly be.
In the committee I offered an amendment that would have added
language directing the Secretary to choose routes for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste to minimize transportation
through populated areas. There may be cases where it is safer to use
routes that are nearer to areas of population because of superior rail
lines or highways. However, where track or road quality and other
factors are otherwise equal, it is clear the Secretary should take into
account proximity to human beings.
My intent is to enhance safety, not compromise it. I want to thank
the chairman for working with me and my staff over the intervening
weeks and for including my amendment as part of his own.
In the light of the progress in the work of the committee, I support
this bill. I share the concerns of many, but I believe that the
chairman and ranking members of the full committee and subcommittees
have made an extraordinary good-faith effort to address the concerns of
Members like me who care about safety in densely-populated urban areas,
as I believe virtually all of us do. And I think that right now, with
the clock running, this represents a sound path toward a more permanent
solution.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Cummings].
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, while I do not support this bill, I do
believe that we must solve our nuclear waste problem. This bill is
merely a temporary fix for a problem that has long-term implications.
Our Nation is at a crossroads. We have benefited from nuclear
technology. We are a Nation that has won wars and deterred others
because of nuclear science. This technology is a cheap and efficient
way to light our towns and cities. We have paid a price for this
benefit.
Over the last 50 years, our Nation has generated tens of thousands of
tons of highly radioactive nuclear materials and waste. I cannot stress
the importance of finding a permanent and viable solution to the
disposal of these wastes.
I have many fundamental problems with the bill before us that can be
solved if the issue were given further consideration. This legislation
allows for nuclear waste to be stored above ground in so-called interim
storage facilities located in the State of Nevada. I am concerned that
legal limitations to ensure that interim storage does not become
permanent storage will be eroded.
The bill does not adequately address public health and safety
protections relating to transportation, interim storage, and permanent
disposal of nuclear waste. My constituents in Baltimore, as customers
of the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, pay into their nuclear waste
fund, which is designed to cover costs of both interim storage and the
permanent repository. I worry that places a continuous burden on
utility customers around the country because this bill does not create
a permanent repository.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We have much more
work to do to ensure the protection of the public health, safety and
environment.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Dan Schaefer] for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1270. I also want to salute
the original drafter of this bill, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Upton], for his work.
I want to talk a little bit about safety. I want to also talk about
Halloween for a moment, because it seems Halloween is not until Friday
but the gloom and doom stories have already begun. The myths about a
``mobile Chernobyl'' are about as credible as the legend of the
headless horseman.
I know that transportation is a problem. Some Members have spoken
about that. Safety is a problem, as well. I want to speak to both of
those issues quickly.
Consider the record: 30 years of experience, 2,400 shipments of spent
nuclear fuel, over 1.5 million miles logged in this country, does not
include the 100 million miles that the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]
talked about on the nuclear weapons side, and all of this movement with
zero radioactive releases and no harm to the environment or American
citizens. The casks are engineered safe. They are tested, they are
demonstrated, and they are certified safe by the NRC, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, for transportation.
I would like to focus on this chart. These are some of the tests that
have taken place with respect to the casks. They include a 30-foot
free-fall; a puncture test onto a steel rod, 6 inches, dropped from a
height; a collision, get this, a collision with a speeding locomotive
at 80 miles per hour; and fire at over 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. I know
the chart says 1475, but beyond that it has gone over 2,000. If that is
not enough, these same casks were submerged underwater for 8 hours, all
with no radiological releases. This technology is currently being used
around the globe, so these casks are safe.
Opponents argue that H.R. 1270 infringes on State and local
jurisdictions. We already heard a little bit about that. But, rather,
H.R. 1270 requires advance notification to State and local governments
before spent fuel crosses their jurisdiction and the defers to the
States on designating the best routes. Transportation is safe.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Dan Schaefer] has
9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] has 14\3/
4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], who has
been the designee of the gentleman from Alaska, has 10 minutes
remaining. And the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has 20
minutes remaining.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard several things from the proponents of the
bill. I just want to say first of all, on the issue of urgency, a 1989
MRS Commission review found no safety advantage to centralizing the
storage of spent fuel, taking it from all of these sites to
[[Page H9663]]
one. In 1996, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board analyzed the
issue of interim storage and concluded there is no urgent need, no
urgent need, for centralized storage of commercial spent fuel. No need,
no compelling necessity, no safety advantage to be achieved. That was
1996.
Now the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board underwent a change in
the composition of the chairmanship. So, in effect, there was an
opportunity for a new board composed of new members to review whether
or not they would agree with the position taken by the predecessors in
1996.
In testimony on February 5, 1997, Dr. Gerard L. Cohen, the chairman
of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Dr. Cohen simply
reaffirmed the position taken by his predecessors that there is no
need, either for technical or safety reasons, to move spent fuel to a
centralized storage facility for the next few years. He further
maintains that to maintain credibility of the site selection process,
any decision with respect to interim storage should be deferred until a
technological site suitability decision can be made about Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], an original cosponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, let us put the facts on the table. In 1982
Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which placed
responsibility for the management of spent nuclear fuel, beginning in
1998 and for its ultimate disposal, with the Federal Government.
Since 1982 Congress has watched as successive Departments of Energy
have attempted to move Federal nuclear waste programs forward, without
any success, for a variety of reasons. Progress in this crucial problem
has been painstakingly slow. How long must we wait?
Last year, this inaction resulted in a number of utilities suing the
Department of Energy to fulfill their obligation to accept spent
nuclear fuel beginning January 31, 1998. The U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of the utilities on this issue. However, there is still
no mechanism in place to establish an interim storage site that would
enable the department to move forward with the acceptance of the waste.
The establishment of an integrated spent fuel management system, as
established by our bill, H.R. 1270, will permit the Secretary to
realize safety, efficiency and the economic benefit of a comprehensive
design. In short Mr. Chairman, a centralized interim storage facility
would mean high-level waste would be consolidated at one site instead
of 40 different sites throughout this country.
Let me assure my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey], who painted a picture of trucks running 100 miles an hour
through tunnels, let me assure him that they will be ticketed.
Now, some have argued that the utilities are merely crying wolf, that
an interim facility is not needed because utilities can expand their
own site storage. Well, let me stress here today that an interim
facility is absolutely critical. The Nation's 107 nuclear plants face
storage emergencies today. As we consider this legislation, 10 plants
no longer have room in their original facilities. Next year, 27 will
run out of space. And by 2010, 80 will lack any capacity to store waste
at all.
Moreover, H.R. 1270 postpones construction of an interim storage
facility until the year 2002.
{time} 1745
This 4-year delay will give the Secretary of Energy an opportunity to
submit a viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain repository to the
President and this Congress. Since 1982, utilities have paid over $13
billion into a nuclear waste fund. Yet the Federal Government has not
lived up to its responsibility to establish a Federal storage facility.
We must stop shucking and jiving. Let us not delay any longer our
responsibility to store the Nation's nuclear waste. I urge my
colleagues to vote aye and stop the procrastination. The time to move
is now.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be good for all of us to face up
to the fact that today we are dealing with a solution of disposing of
one of the wastes of an industrialized society.
In 1971, during the beginning of the Arab oil embargo, the Secretary
of Agriculture asked me to be Director of Energy for USDA. Almost every
morning at 6:30 a.m., we went over to the White House with Bill Simon
and we talked about the problem. At that time we were importing about
50 percent of our energy needs. We came up with what we thought were
wise ideas to deal with the problems. We started to subsidize the
development of alternative fuels. We decided to start subsidizing such
things as mass transportation to increase efficiency of energy in this
country. And we started talking about the wisdom of expanding the
production of nuclear energy. We also discussed what do we do with the
waste generated by the production of energy by nuclear power. We talked
about the possibility of burying it in the ocean. We actually talked
about the possibility of putting it into outer space and keeping it in
orbit.
But instead there seemed to be no good solution, and nothing was
accomplished. Over the years nuclear waste has continued to be stored
outside the generating facilities where it occurs. None of the ways
that we generate energy is benign. They all have serious problems. Most
of our energy is generated by coal (56 percent). If the administration
has their way at the Kyoto Conference, what we are going to do is imply
that we should expand the generation of nuclear energy in order to
decrease coal generated power.
It is interesting to note that after our discussions in 1971 and 1972
of where to go on expanding nuclear energy production to be more self-
sufficient in the United States, the following year, in 1973, a request
by a utility company to build the last nuclear energy plant to be built
was received. I would suggest that this country is never going to again
develop another nuclear energy generating plant.
The government promised the people of this country in 1982 that
government would take the responsibility to get rid of the existing
generated nuclear waste. In return utilities using nuclear power,
through their customers would pay additional ``taxes'' and send it to
Washington. Over the years those ratepayers have paid in an additional
$13 billion.
Now we are dealing with what the government promised to do. I
compliment the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] for bringing this
legislation to us. We are moving ahead. Eventually we are going to find
other sources of energy in this country. But until then we have got to
be responsible to make sure Washington keeps their promise. We have got
to be responsible to develop the best possible ways to deal with
nuclear waste disposal. It is much more logical at this time to put
this waste in a centralized location rather than spread it over 38
States.
Delays and cost overruns have created a national nuclear waste policy
of stop-gap measures and ad hoc solutions instead of centralized,
streamlined results. Today, highly radioactive waste sits scattered at
over 80 different locations in 38 states.
Fred Upton's bill will help establish an interim storage facility
while work continues on the permanent solution--that way we can get
nuclear waste away from vulnerable areas like the shores of Lake
Michigan and the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], a valued member of the Committee on
Commerce.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be clear. Many of us
understand that we need a sensible policy for getting rid of nuclear
waste that threatens many of our metropolitan areas. In my City of
Denver, we are right downwind of some nuclear waste at Rocky Flats that
will need to be disposed of. But we should not send this waste to
uncertified sites and we should not send this waste along urban
corridors that are going to be destructive for transportation purposes.
The National Waste Technical Review Board, a nonpartisan body created
by Congress to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of the
Department of Energy's program to manage
[[Page H9664]]
the permanent disposal of the Nation's civilian spent fuel and high-
level radioactive waste issued its report to Congress in March. The
Board believes that the viability assessment, which will be completed
by September 30, 1998, will not provide adequate information for
establishing Yucca Mountain as a repository site.
Mr. Chairman, the gallery is not in order and it is difficult for me
to proceed.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the guests in the gallery, you
are guests and we ask that you respect the rules of the gallery, and
that is to keep silent during the proceedings.
The Chair apologizes to the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman may proceed.
Ms. DeGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Specifically, the board's report states that a decision to locate the
Nation's primary centralized storage facility for spent fuel at or near
Yucca Mountain should be deferred until the suitability of the site as
a repository location has been determined.
The suitability of Yucca Mountain as a permanent site will not even
be determined until the year 2001. Why then are we going to send this
high-level nuclear waste from the East Coast, from around the country,
across 40 States of this country, including places like the Mousetrap,
which as Members can see through this map, runs right through the
center of downtown Denver, and the location in which 8 years ago a
torpedo fell off a truck completely shutting down the city for 8 hours?
Why would we send this waste to an uncertified site only to have it be
sent somewhere else? And why would we send it through corridors like
downtown metropolitan areas where millions of citizens could be at
risk?
It makes no sense. I do not understand where we are rushing to
transport this nuclear waste until the site is certified. In addition,
there is no national standard requiring emergency response training for
communities along transportation routes so if there is an accident in
the Mousetrap the local law enforcement officers know what to do. There
is no requirement that these officials even be notified of the
transport.
For all of these reasons, this is a premature bill, it is a bad
response to a very real problem that we have in this country. I urge my
colleagues to oppose passage of this bill until we find a permanent
site for this nuclear waste and until we find a reasonable
transportation solution.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record this letter from
the President of the United States indicating that he would veto H.R.
1270.
The text of the letter is as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
If H.R. 1270, as reported by the Commerce Committee, were
presented in its current form, the President would veto the
bill. H.R. 1270 would undermine the credibility of the
Nation's nuclear waste disposal program by designating a
specified site for an interim storage facility before the
viability of that site as a permanent geological repository
has been assessed.
The Administration is committed to resolving the complex
and important issue of nuclear waste storage in a timely and
sensible manner. The Federal government's long-standing
commitment to permanent, geological disposal should remain
the basic goal of high-level radioactive waste management
policy. This Administration has instituted planning and
management initiatives to accelerate progress on determining
the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a permanent
geologic disposal site.
H.R. 1270, however, would establish Nevada as the site of
an interim nuclear waste storage facility before the
viability assessment of Yucca Mountain as a permanent
geologic repository is completed. Moreover, even if Yucca
Mountain is determined not to be viable for a permanent
repository, the bill would provide no plausible opportunity
to designate a viable alternative as an interim storage site.
Any potential siting decision concerning such a facility
ultimately should be based on objective, science-based
criteria and guided by the likelihood of the success of the
Yucca Mountain site.
In addition, the Administration strongly objects to the
bill's weakening of existing environmental standards by
preempting all Federal, State, and local laws inconsistent
with the environmental requirements of this bill and the
Atomic Energy Act. This preemption would effectively replace
the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set
acceptable radiation release standards with a statutory
standard. In addition, the bill would undermine the purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act by, among other
things, creating significant loopholes in the environmental
assessment process.
Finally, the completion of a permanent geological
repository is essential not only for commercial spent fuel
disposal, but also for the cleanup of the Department of
Energy's nuclear weapons complex and the disposal of its
weapons-grade materials. In addition, these actions are
necessary to further U.S. international nuclear
nonproliferation objectives. H.R. 1270 would, in the near
term, put interim storage activities in competition with
actions needed to complete the permanent geologic repository.
Consequently, the bill's enactment could delay the
appropriate disposition of our surplus weapons-grade
materials.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Gibbons], who sits on the Committee on Resources, the major
environmental committee, who voted this bill out unfavorably.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I do want to address some of the myths that I have
heard expressed here today about H.R. 1270. First of all, I want to
address the issue of the ostrich policy, of sticking your head in the
sand and hoping that nobody else sees the problem.
When I was a child, this reminds me of what my mother told me about 3
monkeys. Hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. It is odd that
those people who are in support of this bill are exactly those ones who
have nuclear waste in their backyard that want to get it out. They are
the ones that have benefited from this issue. Now they want to get rid
of it and they want to get rid of it by the most expedient method
possible, getting it wherever it is into the State of Nevada.
Let me address the issue about the interim storage site versus the
permanent storage site. They are not one and the same. They are miles
apart. The interim storage site is a nuclear test site. Yes, indeed we
did detonate some nuclear weapons there years ago. We regret we did
that. We regret that the State of Nevada almost paid the whole price
for the nuclear industry. But the permanent site is miles away. It is
not even co-located. We are making two sites in Nevada, not one.
Second, we are not talking about some magic cosmic mode of
transportation. We are not just picking this stuff up and then setting
it down, as I heard someone say earlier. What we are doing is shipping
this through communities, 43 States, hundreds of communities, numerous
schools with children at play. Let me say when we look at this map
here, this is where we are sending it through this country. These are
the rail and highway systems through which we are bringing most of it
from east of the Mississippi River, west to Nevada, right there.
Transportation is probably the biggest issue we have got here today.
The likelihood of an accident is more than just a remote possibility.
It is a reality. When we look at this accident, this is a train
accident, a recent train accident. I hope people vote against this.
Let me talk about some of the standards that I have heard here today.
We have dropped one of these casks from a standard height of 30 feet.
Mr. Chairman, it is 450 feet off Hoover Dam to the bottom. That is a
little more than 30 feet. This cask would not stand up to the drop of
450 feet into the bottom of the Colorado River at the base of this dam.
I guarantee my colleagues that this cask would be in that water more
than 8 hours. Fires with metal containing titanium or other metals burn
at a temperature of in excess of 3,000 degrees. That is a little more
than the fire that they have exposed these casks to. This is a kind of
accident that could occur, that will occur if we allow this stuff, this
nuclear waste, the most dangerous stuff known to man, to be transported
across our community, through our States, next to schools. It is a
danger to every American. We ought to oppose this bill. We ought to
reject it outright, and we ought to change the policy from burial.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon], a member of the committee.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.R. 1270. Many
Americans have a temporary nuclear storage site close to home. My own
State of Tennessee has a legacy of high level nuclear waste that is
stored onsite. The nuclear weapons that were
[[Page H9665]]
built in Oak Ridge helped this entire Nation win World War II and the
Cold War. Now we have the opportunity through the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1997 to establish a central storage facility in an
underpopulated area that would be easier, safer and more economical to
monitor.
{time} 1800
I understand the concerns of my colleagues who oppose this bill. I
know that no one wants a nuclear storage site in their backyard, but
there is no magic wand that will make this waste go away. It is here,
we have no choice but to deal with it. We need a solution to this
growing problem, and the repository at the Yucca Mountain offers the
best opportunity.
The Southern Governor's Association took steps in this direction
earlier this month by passing a resolution in favor of H.R. 1270.
Additionally, we cannot ignore the fact that consumers have paid into
the Nuclear Waste Fund to store this waste. TVA alone has expended over
$20 million in additional funds because DOE has failed to take this
waste.
We must assure the public of the safety of any repository. The
nuclear industry has been storing fuel in 34 States for more than three
decades. Though the industry is now safely managing used fuel, long-
term on-site storage was never intended.
A central storage facility to keep much of this waste is necessary,
and the Yucca Mountain fits the requirement for safe storage of spent
nuclear fuel.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1270 meets the public's need for a safe
alternative for temporary used fuel storage at one site until a
permanent storage facility is completed. This is a long overdue
solution to a difficult issue.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce that the order of closing will
be the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, first; the gentleman
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, second; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall,
third; and the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, fourth.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, we are looking at an issue that certainly
covers a lot of folks' interests, and certainly the people who oppose
this piece of legislation certainly have a backyard interest of their
own.
Mr. Chairman, 15 years ago, that is how long ago Congress originally
passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In 1992, Congress envisioned that
the Department of Energy would be accepting spent fuel by 1998. That is
less than two months away.
Fifteen years ago, Ronald Reagan was two years into his first term,
Tip O'Neill was Chairman, typewriters, not computers were the norm, and
the Soviet Union was still considered the evil empire.
But perhaps most telling was the fact that 1992 was still a full two
years before the Chicago Cubs would make it to post-season play. If you
are a Cubs fan, you will know how long that really was.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately though, after billions of dollars and a
decade and a half, we are only a few steps closer to opening a
permanent repository than we were in 1982. This bill replaces the
sluggish action that has plagued DOE's Nuclear Waste Program with
specific achievable deadlines and ensures that another 15 years will
not pass before the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility
of accepting spent fuel.
Mr. Chairman, we have spent billions of dollars looking into this
issue. We have assessed from ratepayers, not taxpayers, but ratepayers.
Every time somebody pays their utility bill, we are reaching into their
pocket and we have taken billions of their dollars. What has the
Federal Government been able to deliver for that billions of dollars?
Absolutely nothing.
The ratepayers, our constituents, Mr. Chairman, know that it is time
for this Congress to take the bull by the horns and deliver the promise
that it made in 1982.
Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this bill. We need to fulfill the
promise to the American people that this country will have a safe and
sound nuclear waste policy. We cannot allow another 15 years to go by.
Regardless of what we hear on the floor today, we need to find an
environmentally sound and permanent solution to the management of spent
nuclear waste.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1270 (passed E+P subcmte. 21-3) S. 104 (passed Senate 65-34)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSPORTATION
--No rail access directly to Yucca Mtn. --No immediate rail access to
But contemplates the possibility of Yucca Mtn. No later than one
future rail access. year after enactment of the
--Use heavy-haul from main rail line at bill, DOT will promulgate
Caliente, NV to Yucca Mtn. routing rule for nuclear waste
--Construction and operation of by rail to Yucca.
railroad requires NEPA review. --Heavy haul capability must be
--Advanced state notification ready 18 mos. After NRC issues
requirement. a license for an Interim
--State has preferred routes for Storage Facility (ISF).
transporting nuke waste. --Each state has preferred
--Follows current HazMat regulations on transportation routes.
transport of hazardous waste. --Gov's must be notified when
--Heavy-haul must be ready by 1/31/2002 fuel comes into state.
--No provision for transportation --Nationwide transportation
training requirements (this is major educ. program.
in the Senate's bill). --Major training requirements
--Tech. assis. to states in case of for indivs. involved in
emergency. transportation. (This
provision was important to
gain the support of Dem.
Members and the labor unions.)
MILL FEE AND ONE-TIME FEES
--Beginning FY99 & opening of perm. --Capped at 1 mill. (See below
repos. the annual mill fee must avg. for pros and cons).
to 1 mill. & can't exceed 1.5 mills.
After perm. repos. is functional, mill
fee capped at 1 mill.
--One-Time Fees paid in 2002...........
DEFENSE WASTE
--DOE must accept fuel from defense --DOE must accept fuel from
activities (Crapo). defense activities (Craig).
DEFENSE WASTE FACILITY (ISF)
--To be located at Yucca Mountain...... --To be located at Yucca
--Functional 1/31/2002................. Mountain
--Construc. begins when Sec'y applies --Functional 6/30/2003.
for NRC license.
INTERIM STORAGE CAPACITY
--Phase I: 10,000 MTU and licensed for --No phases for the development
20 years. License must be filed within of the ISE.
12 months of enactment. --The capacity will be
--Phase II: capacity increased to 40K determined at the time of
with an initial term of 100 years. license appl. and based on
--No specific date for start of phase emplacement schedule and
II to begin operation. expected date of perm.
repository operation
--The capacity is expandable.
--Licensed for 40 year term.
PERMANENT REPOSITORY
--Sec'y must apply to NRC for --Requires DOE to continue with
construction authorization no later site characterization at
than 12/31/02. Yucca.
--Perm. Repos. will be functional 1/17/ --Requires DOE Sec. to apply to
10. NRC for construction auth. no
--If Sec. determines Yucca is not later than 10/31/01.
suitable, he must contact Congress w/ --Functional 2015.
in 6 mos. with recommendations for a
new site.
PAYGO FIX
--The House has a 5 year budget window --The Senate has a 10 year
which must be addressed. budget window which must be
--The House addresses its PAYGO addressed.
shortfall by switching to a user fee --The Senate addressed their
in FY99 and collecting the outstanding PAYGO shortfall by continuing
one-time fees in 2002. the mandatory receipt of $600
--The fee is paid into the Treasury, million during FY98. In FY99,
not the Nuclear Waste Fund. it switches to a user fee
until FY01 where the
government collects only what
it will spend on Yucca. In
FY02, they collect the payment
of one time fees. This
scenario will cover the first
5 years. In FY02, they revert
back to the mandatory $600
million receipts to pay for
the next 5 years. (This user
fee is suspended during this
period and utilities are
forced to pay the full amount
to cover the PAYGO problem).
In 2007, the user fee is
reestablished. The fee is paid
to the Treasury, not the
Nuclear Waste Fund.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H9666]]
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas [Mr. Berry].
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1270. Currently, a
part of every electricity consumer's bill goes directly into the
Nuclear Waste Fund. This fund was set up by the Congress in 1982 and
requires the Department of Energy to set up a nuclear storage facility
and begin accepting nuclear waste by 1998.
However, out of the over $12 billion that have already been paid into
the fund, only $4.8 billion have been spent on waste storage research
and funding for storage facilities.
Since the Department of Energy has not constructed a waste storage
facility, the other $7 billion has been diverted into unrelated uses
such as deficit reduction. This is the same type of problem we have
with the Highway Trust Fund. Citizens constantly pay into this fund,
but they see nothing in return.
If the Department of Energy had performed its required actions, we
would not be debating this bill. An interim storage facility would
already be in place and a permanent facility would be in the near
future.
If the Department of Energy had performed its required actions, then
this money would have been used for its intended purpose, for managing
the efficient disposal of nuclear waste.
Arkansans and other electricity consumers are already paying twice
for nuclear waste, one payment into the Nuclear Waste Fund and another
payment to maintain on-site storage facilities across the United
States. This double payment can and will be halted with the passage of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all electricity consumers, I urge my
colleagues to vote for H.R. 1270.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in
1982, and then amended it in 1987, we made certain agreements among
ourselves, the utility companies and the American people.
One, we decided that the federal government would assume the
responsibility for permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste.
Two, we would limit our consideration of possible locations for such
permanent disposal to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Three, the nuclear utilities would pay a fee to the US government to
run the program and fund the construction of the permanent facility.
And, four, the utility companies would keep their nuclear waste until
we knew with certainty that the Yucca Mountain repository would be
built.
The bill before us today, H.R. 1270, fundamentally changes that
covenant.
On October 8, the Resources Committee without one public hearing,
reported unfavorably this extensive and complicated bill, H.R. 1270.
Today, we are considering a bill that will overturn the decision we
made to focus on construction of a safe, permanent facility and instead
mandate the immediate construction of a temporary storage site at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada.
In so doing, the bill will prejudice the ongoing viability studies,
and make it more difficult for us to learn whether Yucca Mountain is
the right place to permanently store high level nuclear waste.
Additionally, no one has done any scientific studies to determine
whether the site specified in HR 1270 is safe for interim storage of
high level nuclear waste.
The bill will preempt all federal and state laws that the Secretary
of Energy deems to be inconsistent, or that present an obstacle, to
implementation of this new law.
During the 1980's, Congress built a strong national policy on nuclear
waste. We decided that the federal government would take responsibility
for the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste. We decided to
find the appropriate location for that disposal and to build the
permanent facility before moving tens of thousands of high level
nuclear waste now located at nuclear reactors across the country to the
permanent disposal site. High level nuclear waste can be moved safely;
but, there is no reason to move it more than is necessary.
Yes, there have been problems with the Department of Energy's
implementation of this plan. But, they appear to be on the right track
now. The science we need to make an informed and objective decision is
nearly complete. HR 1270 would prejudice the determination on whether
Yucca Mountain can and should contain the permanent repository for the
nation's high level nuclear waste by creating a de facto repository at
the Nevada Test Site.
HR 1270 affirmatively preempts the National Environmental Policy Act.
It legislates the selection and construction of an interim storage
facility on public lands without any scientific or environmental
analysis to support the premise.
Current law prohibits the construction of an interim storage facility
in Nevada, and limits the size of any other temporary facility to
10,000 tons of waste. HR 1270 mandates that DOE build the interim
facility in Nevada and allows up to 40,000 tons of high level nuclear
waste to be immediately stored there--with no environmental compliance.
President Clinton will veto this bill if it reaches his desk. Senator
Harry Reid and his Nevada colleagues are unanimously opposed to this
bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1270.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] is
recognized for four minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record letters from
Erskine Bowles, the Chief of Staff to the President; Franklin Raines,
the Director of OMB; and a formal statement of administration policy
expressing opposition to the bill and the recommendation of the
President's advisors that the bill be vetoed.
Mr. Chairman, we are at a very bad point right now. There was at
least at the beginning of the discussion of the disposal of all nuclear
wastes in the United States some integrity in the process back in 1982.
We set out to find the site, east of the Mississippi, west of the
Mississippi, wherever it may be.
But in 1987, we came back here to Congress, and many people were very
upset about what was going on. They might have been pro nuclear, but
they did not want the waste in their district. So we passed another
bill in 1987. What did we say?
Well, the Chairman of the House then came from Texas. He said, ``I
don't want it in Texas.'' That was one of the sites. The second site
was in Washington State. The majority leader came from Washington
State. He said, ``I don't want it in Washington State.'' It was out.
The third State was the salt domes in Louisiana. The Chairman of the
Committee on Energy came from Louisiana. He said, ``I don't want it in
Louisiana,'' and it was out. The fourth site was in North Carolina. The
ranking Republican on the Committee on Commerce came from North
Carolina. North Carolina was out. The fifth site was the solid granite
of New Hampshire, and Ronald Reagan and George Bush said, ``That is out
in 1988. We are not burying all the nuclear waste in America in New
Hampshire.''
So we kept searching, playing this game of thermonuclear hearts,
trying to stick the queen of spades with somebody. So we looked around,
and what did we find? We found the State of Nevada, two Congressmen,
two Senators. ``You get all the nuclear waste. We are picking you.''
Even that had some integrity. At least they were going to have to
determine whether or not the site was suitable for all the nuclear
waste.
But, today, we come back again. We are not happy with that. There are
still five years until the year 2002, from deciding whether or not, in
fact, Yucca Mountain is the right place for all the nuclear waste, but
we cannot wait.
So what are we doing here today? We are going to decide to take all
of the nuclear waste in America, put it on trucks, put it in railroad
cars, and ship it to Nevada, and put it in an above-ground mausoleum
that is going to be finished in 2002, just in time to have the site
characterization process by scientists and geologists tell us that
Yucca Mountain is not the right place for a permanent repository.
As a result, we will have to begin the process all over again to find
the right site, and eventually we will have to pack all the nuclear
waste up again, put it back in vans and trucks and railroad cars, and
send it to another place in America.
Why are we doing this? We are doing this not because there is some
emergency at any nuclear facility in America. In fact, we are told that
it is 100
[[Page H9667]]
percent safe at every facility right now. We are doing this because the
nuclear industry does not want a permanent repository. They do not want
to have to pay for it.
They promised the American people that nuclear power was going to be
too cheap to meter, and that they were going to be able to bury the
waste permanently. We now know it is the most expensive way of
generating electricity. Wall Street killed nuclear power it wasn't some
ponytailed, granola-chomping protest force outside a nuclear power
plant.
Secondly, they do not know where to bury the nuclear waste and they
do not have any intention of paying for it, and they want us to pretend
here today that we are going to do something about it and stick the
queen of spades with the State of Nevada.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a completely irresponsible position to
take. It is intergenerationally irresponsible for this generation to
stick the next generation with the job and the cost of burying all this
waste.
This is a bad bill. It is bad environmental policy. It is bad fiscal
policy, and it is bad policy intergenerationally. I urge a no vote on
this bill as strongly as I can of any bill that has ever come out on
this House floor.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letters referred to earlier for the
Record.
The White House,
Washington, October 28, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding that the House of
Representatives soon will consider H.R. 1270. I am writing to
reiterate the Administration's objection to this legislation.
If the bill were presented to him in its current form, the
President would veto it.
As I have stated previously, the Administration is
committed to resolving the complex and important issue of
nuclear waste storage in a timely and sensible manner,
consistent with sound science and the protection of public
health, safety, and the environment. The Federal government's
long-standing commitment to permanent, geologic disposal--
reflected in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982--should
remain the basic goal of high-level radioactive waste
management policy.
Any decision on the siting of an interim storage facility
should be based on objective, science-based criteria, and be
fully protective of public health and safety and the
environment. This bill is unacceptable to the Administration
because it falls far short of those goals. Additionally, H.R.
1270 does not contain provisions to offset potential deficit
increases in its early years; consequently, if the bill were
enacted, any deficit effects could contribute to a sequester
of mandatory spending in each of FY 1999 through 2001.
Secretary Pena and the entire Administration remain
committed to working cooperatively with the Congress and with
all involved stakeholders on nuclear waste disposal issues
within the confines of the President's policy. The Department
is on an aggressive schedule to resolve the key unresolved
scientific and technical questions about Yucca Mountain.
Sincerely,
Erskine B. Bowles,
Chief of Staff to the President.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, September 18, 1997.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to advise you of the
Administration's views on H.R. 1270, the proposed Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1997. The Administration shares your
commitment to resolving the complex and important issue of
nuclear waste management in a timely and sensible manner,
consistent with sound science and the protection of public
health, safety, and the environment. The Federal government's
long-standing commitment to permanent, geologic disposal
should remain the basic goal of high-level radioactive waste
management policy.
Congress established a process to ensure that sound
technical judgment plays the primary role in determining
whether a particular site can host a permanent nuclear waste
repository. Designating the Nevada Test Site as the interim
waste storage site at this point undermines the ongoing
evaluation of Yucca Mountain as a permanent disposal site as
required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987.
In addition, the bill runs the risk of reducing resources
needed for this effort. More importantly, it could undermine
the credibility of the Nation's nuclear waste disposal
program by prejudicing the Yucca Mountain permanent
repository decision.
The Administration believes that a decision on the siting
of an interim storage facility should be based on objective,
science-based criteria and should be informed by the
viability assessment of Yucca Mountain. Therefore, the
President has stated that he would veto any legislation that
would designate an interim storage facility at a specific
site before the viability of a permanent geologic repository
at Yucca Mountain has been determined.
In addition, the bill presents a number of environmental
problems, including the removal of the Environmental
Protection Agency from its responsibility for developing a
radiation exposure standard and preempting the National
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable Federal, State
and local laws.
The Administration understands the concerns of the utility
industry, public utility commissions, and others about the
inability of the Department of Energy to accept spent nuclear
fuel by January 31, 1998. Secretary Pena has made every
effort since his confirmation to work cooperatively with the
affected parties to find satisfactory ways of mitigating the
impacts of this delay and will continue to do so.
Thank you for your consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Franklin D. Raines,
Director.
____
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, October 24, 1997.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1270--Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997
If H.R. 1270, as reported by the Commerce Committee, were
presented in its current form, the President would veto the
bill. H.R. 1270 would undermine the credibility of the
Nation's nuclear waste disposal program by designating a
specified site for an interim storage facility before the
viability of that site as a permanent geological repository
has been assessed.
The Administration is committed to resolving the complex
and important issue of nuclear waste storage in a timely and
sensible manner. The Federal government's long-standing
commitment to permanent, geological disposal should remain
the basic goal of high-level radioactive waste management
policy. This Administration has instituted planning and
management initiatives to accelerate progress on determining
the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a permanent
geologic disposal site.
H.R. 1270, however, would establish Nevada as the site of
an interim nuclear waste storage facility before the
viability assessment of Yucca Mountain as a permanent
geologic repository is completed. Moreover, even if Yucca
Mountain is determined not to be viable for a permanent
repository, the bill would provide no plausible opportunity
to designate a viable alternative as an interim storage site.
Any potential siting decision concerning such a facility
ultimately should be based on objective, science-based
criteria and guided by the likelihood of the success of the
Yucca Mountain site.
In addition, the Administration strongly objects to the
bill's weakening of existing environmental standards by
preempting all Federal, State, and local laws inconsistent
with the environmental requirements of this bill and the
Atomic Energy Act. This preemption would effectively replace
the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set
acceptable radiation release standards with a statutory
standard. In addition, the bill would undermine the purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act by, among other
things, creating significant loopholes in the environmental
assessment process.
Finally, the completion of a permanent geological
repository is essential not only for commercial spent fuel
disposal, but also for the cleanup of the Department of
Energy's nuclear weapons complex and the disposal of its
weapons-grade materials. In addition, these actions are
necessary to further U.S. international nuclear
nonproliferation objectives. H.R. 1270 would, in the near-
term, put interim storage activities in competition with
actions needed to complete the permanent geologic repository.
Consequently, the bill's enactment could delay the
appropriate disposition of our surplus weapons-grade
materials.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO SCORING
H.R. 1270 would affect outlays; therefore, it is subject to
the pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. Preliminary estimates indicate
that H.R. 1270 would reduce offsetting receipts by $630
million in each of FYs 1999 through 2001, a total of $1,890
million, and increase such receipts by $2,070 million FY
2002. H.R. 1270 does not contain provisions to offset
potential deficit increases in its early years; consequently,
if the bill were enacted, any deficit could contribute to a
sequester of mandatory spending in each of FYs 1999 through
2001.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members that the order of
closing is the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hall, and the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer.
The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining,
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from
Nevada, I would like to just ask jokingly
[[Page H9668]]
for unanimous consent to build a statue for the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] in the State of Nevada, as he has fought so
hard for our State.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate having the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] being a straight man for this whole event today.
Let me say that with regard to those people who believe that the
ratepayers have paid into the fund enough money, let me say that this
stuff is going to be around for thousands and thousands of years. I
hope they are ready to keep paying, and paying, and paying, because
they are going to have to pick up the responsibility if the taxpayers
do not for the continued storage of this material at Yucca Mountain.
Let me talk about the suitability of Yucca Mountain, if I may, real
briefly. First of all, I am a geologist and I truly understand some of
the problems we have got with suitability. If we keep lowering the
standards, sure, we can make it suitable for storage. The problem is
that we are taking away the safety standards of this site.
Earthquakes, 33 known earthquake faults lie directly through this
site in the Yucca Mountain area, and over the last several years, there
have been over 600 earthquakes in the surrounding 5\1/2\ miles that
have impacted this.
Earthquakes that raise the water table, that would surround and, in
fact, could flood the repository, putting the canisters in harm of
polluting the water table.
This groundwater contamination has been proven already. We have
already got a study by the National Science Foundation that shows that
plutonium has migrated almost 1 mile, 1 mile, into the ground through
the rocks and is now approaching the water table, dangerously close to
the supply of water for Southern California, Southern Nevada, et
cetera.
{time} 1815
There is volcanic activity simply 20 kilometers away from the site.
There are dormant volcanoes that could erupt at any time. From a
geologic standpoint, they are active, not dormant. They are merely
sitting there waiting for their opportunity to explode and damage the
Yucca Mountain site. Let me say also, there is concern there by
scientists about the spontaneous atomic explosion that might occur.
Some scientists have expressed that.
Let me say that this bill is the wrong approach and Yucca Mountain is
the wrong site.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] is recognized
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, nearly 14 years ago a Senator from
Louisiana, who was the chief proponent in the Senate, said, ``Mr.
President, this bill deals comprehensively with the problem of civilian
nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem,'' does this sound familiar,
``urgent problem. Mr. President, for this Nation it is urgent, first
because we are running out of reactor space and reactors for the
storage of fuel, and if we do not build what we call away-from-reactor
storage space and begin that soon, we could begin shutting down
civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as 1983.''
That was 14 years ago. Not a single nuclear reactor in America has
been closed or been forced to close because of the issue of running out
of space. Some have closed because of overriding safety concerns about
operation and maintenance, but none because they have run out of space
to store nuclear waste.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has decided this issue, not the scientists.
This would be similar, what Congress is doing in this bill, is saying
with Yucca Mountain and with the temporary storage site at the Nevada
test site, ``I do not care what any of the scientists say, it is going
to be the site, and it is going to be suitable, and we are going to
lower the standards until it is suitable.''
This would be like Congress saying to the medical community, ``There
is a disease out there that we want you to find a cure for. By the way,
here is what the cure is going to be. Regardless of what the science
shows, here is what the cure is going to be. I do not care what any of
the rest of the science says, if there are other alternatives to treat
this disease.''
I know we are all experts here, we are all scientists, and that is
why we are making these decisions. We are taking away that decision on
nuclear waste, just as we would be taking it away from the medical
community, say on breast cancer, by telling them it is going to be the
answer out there, and not letting the scientists and the experts in the
medical community make this decision.
The other myth is that we are taking this from all these other States
and going to put it in one site. The fact is that nuclear waste is
going to remain in these other States, in these 41 States. Because even
as we are shipping nuclear waste, and there will be nuclear waste going
to Nevada, Members will still end up with nuclear waste at all of these
other reactors around the country.
It has even been said to me that this is a national security
interest, that nuclear waste at these facilities is dangerous to a
terrorist. If that is the case, we should never have built the nuclear
power plants in the first place. The other thing is that Yucca Mountain
and the temporary storage facility is not going to solve a national
security interest problem, because there is still going to be nuclear
waste at these facilities.
The other thing is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said
that dry cask storage is good for 100 years. When they were designing
the casks to transport this waste they designed a perfect solution. It
is the cheapest solution. It only costs about $300 million to actually
store this waste on-site in dry casks for up to 100 years. To transport
this waste it costs about $2.3 billion. For all of us budget hawks
around here, we should be thinking about how much does it cost to
transport versus store.
I would urge a strong ``no'' vote. Do not vote with the nuclear power
interests.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentlemen from Nevada,
Mr. Ensign and Mr. Gibbons. And of course there is not a better guy in
the world than Harry Reid, who has worked hard on this; the gentleman
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, only in his third year, and the other
gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, in the first year. The die was cast
long before they got here. They have done an heroic and admirable job
with what they had. I respect them for that.
The Committee on Commerce, the committee of jurisdiction, voted 43 to
3 to carry out the intent of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman] is
recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, despite some of the statements to the contrary, the
bill before us today is about protecting our environment. It is about
safeguarding our natural resources, for now and for years to come.
Moreover, it is about dealing with the realities of our society. We
depend on nuclear energy and we must address the potential dangers
associated with it. This bill would do just that.
There is no question about the importance nuclear power plays in our
lives. Nuclear power is a source of energy in our country, producing 20
percent of the Nation's electricity. Although nuclear energy produces a
small amount of used fuel, it produces no air pollution. Unfortunately,
most of the spent fuel is stored in above-ground pools at the plant
sites, where it still remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of
years. The reality of the situation is that 75 nuclear power plants
currently store used fuel. By next year, 27 of them will exhaust
existing space to store this waste. I believe it is in our best
interests to ensure that one safe storage facility is developed to meet
these very real and pending needs.
Let us safely and efficiently manage this spent fuel. Let us pass
H.R. 1270,
[[Page H9669]]
and require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of
Energy to prepare environmental impact statements. Let us ensure
radiation standards for the public, and let us make certain that the
NRC maintains its strict enforcement of container design essential to
the safe transportation of spent nuclear waste across State lines.
The bill is also about our commitment to nuclear waste disposal.
Fifteen years ago Federal officials pledged to protect all of us from
nuclear waste. Instead, Congress tapped the nuclear waste fund for
other projects. We have already invested over $13 billion to the
nuclear waste fund. My constituents alone have paid over $650 million.
It is time that fees dedicated to this fund were spent for their
intended purposes.
Almost all of us already have a de facto nuclear storage site closer
to home than we care to think. We have the opportunity today to
establish a storage facility that would be easier to monitor, more
economical, and located at a remote location, far away from our homes
and schools.
Members should do what they know is right. Support passage of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reflect on what the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Hall] had to say about the two Members from Nevada. They have been
great on this issue. We know it is not an easy one to try and go forth
on, and I just want to say that they have been very much gentlemen in
this, and have been ferocious fighters. I have to say that we respect
them tremendously.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to close to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the author of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton] is recognized
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank a number of people here
tonight. I thank the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from
Virginia, [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan
Schaefer]. Without their leadership, we would not see this bill to the
floor this evening.
I also want to thank, on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member, and the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Hall], who have been terrific. I, too, share in thanking the
two gentlemen from Nevada, who have been very good debaters, they have
been very persistent, they have made us do our homework for sure, and
they have been very tough. I appreciate that, as well.
I also thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns], my coauthor,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Idaho
[Mr. Crapo], and the 165 Members of the House that have cosponsored the
bill. We have heard tonight that it passed our committee 43 to 3. We
passed it by about the same margin in the last Congress, as well.
Nuclear power, the decision for nuclear power, was made many decades
ago. Part of that strategy was always that the Federal Government would
be responsible for the permanent storage of the high-level nuclear
waste. That was part of the equation. That is what this bill does. It
in essence moves it to one safe place.
Today we have about 100 different nuclear reactor sites around the
country. Every single one of them is in a sensitive environmental area,
whether it be on the Great Lakes, whether it be on the Chesapeake Bay.
Whether it be rivers, streams, or oceans, they are all very sensitive.
Our ratepayers have put in some $12 billion into the Nuclear Waste
Trust Fund, of which about $6 billion has been spent in Yucca Mountain.
Yes, we have detractors, certainly our two colleagues from Nevada,
and the opponents of nuclear power as well. But that nuclear decision
was made before I was in high school. About 20 percent of our power
today comes from nuclear energy, and if we turned off that power
tonight, we would still have to deal with the issue of what to do with
the high-level nuclear waste. That is what this bill does.
Today in this country we have 10 sites that have run out of room.
They have reracked their rods, they have built these lead-lined cement
cannisters that are literally stacked in the dunes of Lake Michigan and
other places around the country, because they have run out of room.
They did not have anyplace to put it. Next year we are going to have 27
more reactors run out of room. It is time for this Congress to act, to
send it to one safe place.
Yucca Mountain, Mr. Chairman, I have been there. It is adjacent to
where we have conducted underground, uncontained nuclear testing for
almost 50 years. When this bill gets enacted, and it will, nuclear
waste will be in a contained spot. It will be monitored. It is going to
be in a place that will be deemed safe by the scientists.
The record shows we have had some 2,400 shipments across the country
to the existing nuclear facilities today, and 1,300 tons of nuclear
material in fact was shipped without a single release, not a single
release of nuclear material in all of those shipments. They did not
mine that nuclear stuff in the dunes of Lake Michigan, they had to ship
it there. When they shipped it there, the record was perfect.
This is a bipartisan bill. It has been that from the beginning. I
thank the Republicans and Democrats, and ask them to vote in favor of
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1997. I introduced H.R. 1270 earlier this year with
Representatives Towns, Hastert, Crapo and 55 other original cosponsors.
It is designed to address our national problem with high-level nuclear
waste by providing workable solutions for managing spent nuclear fuel.
The total number of cosponsors has already reached 165 Members of the
House. Similar legislation passed the Senate in April by a vote of 65-
34.
As a by-product of nuclear power, high-level nuclear waste currently
rests in spent fuel pools and canisters at locations across the
country. They are not, however, at a secure, central location like our
Government agreed to build.
Behind chainlink fences along the Chesapeake, on cement pads a
stone's throw from the Great Lakes, near our neighborhoods and our
schools, nuclear waste is now a problem forced upon States, counties,
and townships due to the Federal Government's blatant shirking of their
responsibility--a failure that has cost taxpayers over $12 billion.
In my district in southwest Michigan, nuclear waste currently sits in
a dry cask on a cement pad 100 yards from Lake Michigan. The site is
less than 5 miles from an elementary school with 800 students. Now, I
will say right away that the site is safe and secure--But it was not
meant for long-term storage. I would rather have nuclear waste
permanently stored at an isolated and remote location than at over 80
sites around the country.
I have a message to those Members who are concerned about the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel; it's been transported for 30
years and according the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
The safety record for spent nuclear fuel shipments in the
U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the
thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none
has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of
radioactive materials.
NRC statistics show that over 1,300 tons of spent fuel was shipped in
the United States from 1979 through 1995. This was accomplished through
a mix of shipments on highways and rail.
For a little background, in 1982 Congress passed and the President
signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It was later amended in 1987 but
its goal remained simple and steamlined--the Federal Government agreed
to accept responsibility for the proper management and disposal of
defense and civilian nuclear waste. From funds collected through a tax
on our electricity bills, the Government was going to build a high
level repository and begin accepting waste from utility companies by
January 31, 1998.
A lot has happened since the 1980's. But by the same token a lot
hasn't happened--namely progress toward completing this project. The
Department of Energy has spent time in court, time at the research lab,
and time boring a massive hole in the side of Yucca Mountain in
Nevada--the site selected to potentially house a permanent repository.
Our most recent estimates, however, show this facility won't be ready
to receive waste until well into the next century.
Today and tomorrow, Congress will debate a bill that provides a short
term solution to this long term problem. The legislation directs the
Department of Energy to continue working on
[[Page H9670]]
the permanent site while also temporarily stacking the waste outside
what is expected to be the final resting place. Our Government should
pursue a policy that puts nuclear waste behind one fence, in one
location, where we can concentrate all of our resources on making sure
it is safe.
Nuclear waste transcends political ideologies. As a nation, we must
work together to develop a single national strategy. As a Congress, we
must work together to get this solution in place.
With each passing year and each passing month, the price of nuclear
waste continues to mount. Ratepayers keep paying taxes on their
electricity bills to support the bottomless Nuclear Waste Fund. Without
a solution in place, the burden of disposal falls back on the local
utility companies, and, in turn, back squarely on the shoulders of the
American consumer as they are double taxed.
Earlier this year, the Department of Energy was again assailed in the
courts. 46 State agencies and 33 power companies from 36 States filed
suit to force the administration to stick to the original deadline
which is less than 3 months away. Obviously, we won't meet the deadline
but H.R. 1270 offers some solutions because rightly so, everyone
is growing tired of these costly delays. In light of these
developments, I would urge the Department and the administration to
work with us as this legislation moves through the congressional
process, rather than throw up roadblocks.
Critics claim that Yucca Mountain is not an appropriate location for
nuclear waste. Yucca is located within the Nevada Test Site, an area
the size of Connecticut that since the Truman administration has been
home to atmospheric nuclear test blasts and countless active and
abandoned nuclear labs. Its remote, arid location is, in fact, ideally
suited to store nuclear waste.
The real danger exists only in allowing our Government to break its
word and expect us to look the other way. But it is difficult to look
the other way on this issue when at seemingly every other turn, another
community is being forced to deal with nuclear waste close to home. My
colleagues and I were sent to Congress to fix the Nation's problems.
Through lessons we've learned from events like the savings and loan
debacle, we know that inaction only makes the situation worse.
Simply put, nuclear waste is one of the single greatest environmental
issues that exist today. In turn, one would assume that it should be
the single greatest concern of an administration which has campaigned
on its support and defense of the environment.
We can deal effectively with this by placing nuclear waste in a
suitable location in the interim. That threat can be greatly reduced
still by putting in place a permanent facility. The Department of
Energy must be held accountable to the U.S. Congress, and more
importantly, to the U.S. taxpayers.
Key groups have come out in support of H.R. 1270 such as the National
Association of Counties, Citizens Against Government Waste. Many
Governors have written as well to express the need for action on this
issue.
I would hope that in the same spirit and bipartisanship that we
showed in reaching a balanced budget agreement, we can also move
forward in passing nuclear waste legislation this year.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, over 15 years ago, Congress recognized the
need to build a permanent repository to handle our nation's spent
nuclear fuel and passed laws directing the Department of Energy to take
the lead in this effort. Despite collecting billions of dollars from
ratepayers across the nation, the Department of Energy has yet to open
even a temporary site where spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored
until a permanent facility is built.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to protect America from harmful
nuclear waste by storing it safely. I urge my colleagues to support the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Passing this important legislation will move
us one step closer to eliminating the threat of nuclear contamination
in communities across the nation.
Mr. Chairman, some would have us believe that the nuclear waste
should remain where it is. But right now, there are over 30,000 tons of
radioactive waste stored outside nuclear reactors at over 80 facilities
in 41 states. Some sites are dangerously close to fault lines,
volcanoes and other areas prone to natural disaster. And almost every
one of these sites is within a few miles, sometimes a few yards of
somebody's backyard.
Our government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Until
now, the Department of Energy has not fulfilled its obligation. Mr.
Chairman, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act will protect America from
harmful nuclear waste by moving it to a safe site. I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to support it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify the intent of certain
provisions of H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, that are
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
A savings clause, section 207, has been included in the manager's
amendment which clarifies that H.R. 1270 does not affect the
application of existing laws governing transportation of hazardous
materials, rail and motor carrier safety and federal-aid highway
construction. Under the savings clause, the provisions in Chapter 51 of
Title 49, U.S. Code (governing transportation of hazardous materials),
Part A of Subtitle V of Title 49, U.S. Code (governing rail safety),
Part B of Subtitle VI of Title 49, U.S. Code (governing motor carrier
safety) and Title 23, U.S. Code (governing the Federal-Aid Highway
program) remain in effect. This savings clause is necessary for a
number of reasons. First, the bill funds technical assistance and
training on the transportation of nuclear waste to the site and
requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate new regulations
governing transportation of nuclear waste, if he finds that existing
regulations are not adequate. Because the existing law and regulations
governing transportation of hazardous materials apply to the
transportation of nuclear waste, section 207 clarifies that H.R. 1270
does not supplant existing law or regulations. Rather, H.R. 1270 will
allow the Secretary of Transportation to exercise his discretion to
promulgate regulations only to the extent existing regulations are not
adequate.
Second, while the bill makes the employee protection provisions in
the rail and motor carrier safety laws applicable to individuals
engaged in the interstate transportation of nuclear waste, it does not
specify the applicability of other rail or motor carrier safety
provisions. Section 207 is, therefore, necessary to clarify that all of
the rail and motor carrier safety provisions and not simply the
employee protection provisions are applicable. Third, the bill
authorizes the Secretary of Energy to fund road improvements leading to
the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. Because Title 23 governs
construction of Federal-aid highways, section 207 clarifies that Title
23 requirements are applicable to federal-aid roads constructed with
funds provided under H.R. 1270.
A provision also was added to the manager's amendment which provides
that the Secretary is not required to promulgate new training standards
for the transportation of hazardous materials if there already are
existing federal regulations that establish adequate training
standards. This provision clarifies an ambiguity in section 203(g) of
the bill as reported regarding whether the Secretary of Transportation
could decide not to promulgate additional regulations in response to
this legislation based on a finding that existing Department of
Transportation regulations are adequate.
A provision also was added to the manager's amendment which provides
that the Secretary of Transportation may specify an appropriate level
of knowledge, skills, and prior training for individuals required to be
trained in the transportation of hazardous materials instead of a
required minimum number of hours of training. The bill as reported
required Department of Transportation regulations to specify a minimum
number of hours of training for employees and management personnel.
Finally, a provision was added on the selection of rail routes for
the transportation of nuclear waste. I am concerned that this provision
is less clear than it should be as to the need to consult with the
affected rail carriers. I believe that such consultation is a practical
necessity anyway, and so I am not objecting to the amendment. It is my
hope that this point will be clarified during the conference on the
bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1270, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. This legislation is needed for one
simple reason, Congress must ensure that the Federal government follows
through with its commitment to store nuclear fuel at a central location
in the United States.
Without a functioning, centrally located site, this spent nuclear
fuel is piling up at sites all around the nation. While spent fuel can
be stored permanently in this fashion, utilities are simply running out
of room and will soon need more space. And furthermore, having multiple
sites raises the safety question.
American ratepayers thought they had a firm contract with the Federal
government under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 to
start accepting waste in 1998. However, the Department of Energy is
nowhere close to keeping its end of the agreement and is at best a
decade behind schedule. Forty-six state agencies and thirty-three power
companies from thirty-six states have shown their frustration with DOE
by filing suit to force DOE to adher to the original deadline.
This bill moves the stalled process along. It provides for an interim
storage facility which will be used until the permanent site at Yucca
Mountain is properly tested and ready to accept waste. The sense of
Congress is that our government should pursue a policy that puts
nuclear waste safely behind one fence, in one location, in one state.
As a member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee on
Appropriations
[[Page H9671]]
which has oversight over the Nuclear Waste Fund, I visited the Yucca
Mountain site in March 1997. As I looked out across the vast Nevada
desert where the military once exploded atomic bombs, I felt that one
central location for storage was the best solution for addressing our
high level waste storage problem.
With each passing year and each passing month, the price of storing
nuclear waste continues to mount. Ratepayers keep paying taxes on their
electricity bills to support the bottomless Nuclear Waste Fund. Without
a solution in place, the burden of disposal falls back on the shoulders
of the American consumer. Moreover, inaction may create perhaps the
largest environmental threat that exists today with more than one
hundred sites around the nation instead of one central facility.
We can minimize that threat by placing nuclear waste in a suitable
location in the interim, and then moving it to an underground permanent
repository in Nevada. This bill provides the leadership we need to
accomplish these goals.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Quite simply, the issue of nuclear
waste disposal has been delayed far too long. It must be addressed in a
responsible manner.
As one of only six Members representing a district with multiple
nuclear power plants, this Member certainly recognizes the importance
of developing a safe, comprehensive, and long-term approach to the
storage of spent nuclear fuel. Maintaining the status quo, with its
reliance on on-site storage, is clearly not an acceptable long-term
solution. In general, this Member believes that H.R. 1270, as approved
by the Commerce Committee, represents a responsible approach.
The bill being considered directs the Department of Energy to begin
storing high-level nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada
until a permanent disposal site is developed. H.R. 1270 also makes
improvements in safety and transportation issues related to the
disposal of nuclear waste/
This legislation is necessary because the Department of Energy has
not made acceptable progress on developing a permanent repository for
spent nuclear fuel. It is estimated that by 2010, 80 nuclear reactors--
including both in Nebraska--will have reached on-site storage capacity.
As a result, if no changes are made, it is likely that consumers
would be required to continue contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund
while also paying to develop additional on-site storage space. This
would clearly not be reasonable or equitable. This issue is critically
important to Nebraska and its nuclear energy consumers, who have
already paid more than $150 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
This Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 1270.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
profound disapproval at the proposed agreement reached by
Representative Lamar Smith and Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart. This
agreement unfairly distinguishes between Central Americans who entered
the United States before December 1995 and Guantanamo Haitians who
entered the United States during 1991 and 1992.
My disagreement with this proposed legislation is based on the
exclusion of the Guantanamo Haitians from the proposed amnesty. It is
very shocking to find that this proposed law grants relief to Central
Americans, without regard to the plight of those 11,000 Haitians who
were admitted to the United States after being processed in Guantanamo
in 1991.
One of the arguments used to favor the Central Americans is that they
are in the United States for political reasons. I believe this is a
similar situation with Guantanamo Haitians who fled Haiti by boat to
escape a violent military dictatorship, headed by General Cedras and
Michel Francois. Many of them were reportedly killed by this military
regime. Those who escaped were intercepted at sea, and were brought to
Guantanamo for screening. They were determined to have credible claims
for political asylum. Thus, they were permitted to enter the United
States based on their credible claims.
Besides the Guantanamo Haitians, many other Haitians escaped to the
United States in search of peace and freedom. However, they were sent
back to Haiti because they were considered ``economic refugees''.
Today, even the Guantanamo Haitians, those who were determined to be
political refugees, may be deported.
Mr. Speaker, there is no legitimate reason to discriminate between
the Haitian asylum seekers from the Central American asylum seekers. In
my district, which includes a large Haitian constituency, great concern
has been expressed that Congress will enact legislation to grandfather
Central Americans under the old suspension of deportation provisions to
the exclusion of Haitians who are similarly situated.
This proposed legislation is flawed and has a double standard
favoring Latinos. I believe that equity require that the law treat
similarly situated persons alike. Thus, I would be opposed to any
legislation which denies any group equal protection under the law.
Extending to Haitians the same benefits that we extend to Central
Americans is the only just thing to do. Therefore, I cannot support
this proposed agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Commerce printed in the bill shall be
considered as an original bill for the purposes of amendment under the
5-minute rule, and shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1270
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is amended to read as
follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1997'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--
``Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Definitions.
``Sec. 3. Findings and purposes.
``TITLE I--OBLIGATIONS
``Sec. 101. Obligations of the Secretary of Energy.
``TITLE II--INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
``Sec. 201. Intermodal transfer.
``Sec. 202. Transportation planning.
``Sec. 203. Transportation requirements.
``Sec. 204. Interim storage.
``Sec. 205. Permanent disposal.
``Sec. 206. Land withdrawal.
``Sec. 207. Private storage facilities.
``TITLE III--LOCAL RELATIONS
``Sec. 301. On-site representative.
``Sec. 302. Benefits agreements.
``Sec. 303. Content of agreements.
``Sec. 304. Acceptance of benefits.
``Sec. 305. Restriction on use of funds.
``Sec. 306. Initial land conveyances.
``Sec. 307. Payments equal to taxes.
``TITLE IV--FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION
``Sec. 401. Program funding.
``Sec. 402. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
``Sec. 403. Defense contribution.
``TITLE V--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``Sec. 501. Compliance with other laws.
``Sec. 502. Water rights.
``Sec. 503. Judicial review of agency actions.
``Sec. 504. Licensing of facility expansions and transshipments.
``Sec. 505. Siting a second repository.
``Sec. 506. Financial arrangements for low-level radioactive waste site
closure.
``Sec. 507. Nuclear Regulatory Commission training authorization.
``Sec. 508. Acceptance schedule.
``Sec. 509. Subseabed or ocean water disposal.
``TITLE VI--NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
``Sec. 601. Definitions.
``Sec. 602. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
``Sec. 603. Functions.
``Sec. 604. Investigatory powers.
``Sec. 605. Compensation of members.
``Sec. 606. Staff.
``Sec. 607. Support services.
``Sec. 608. Report.
``Sec. 609. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 610. Termination of the board.
``TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT REFORM
``Sec. 701. Management reform initiatives.
``Sec. 702. Reporting.
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this Act:
``(1) Accept, acceptance.--The terms `accept' and
`acceptance' mean the Secretary's act of taking possession of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(2) Acceptance schedule.--The term `acceptance schedule'
means the schedule established in section 508 for acceptance
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(3) Affected Indian tribe.--The term `affected Indian
tribe' means any Indian tribe--
``(A) within whose reservation boundaries the interim
storage facility or a repository for spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste, or both, is proposed to be
located; or
``(B) whose federally defined possessory or usage rights to
other lands outside of the reservation's boundaries arising
out of congressionally ratified treaties may be substantially
and adversely affected by the locating of such a facility if
the Secretary of the Interior finds, upon the petition of the
appropriate governmental officials of the tribe, that such
effects are both substantial and adverse to the tribe.
``(4) Affected unit of local government.--The term
`affected unit of local government' means the unit of local
government with jurisdiction over the site of a repository or
interim
[[Page H9672]]
storage facility. Such term may, at the discretion of the
Secretary, include other units of local government that are
contiguous with such unit.
``(5) Atomic energy defense activity.--The term `atomic
energy defense activity' means any activity of the Secretary
performed in whole or in part in carrying out any of the
following functions:
``(A) Naval reactors development.
``(B) Weapons activities including defense inertial
confinement fusion.
``(C) Verification and control technology.
``(D) Defense nuclear materials production.
``(E) Defense nuclear waste and materials byproducts
management.
``(F) Defense nuclear materials security and safeguards and
security investigations.
``(G) Defense research and development.
``(6) Civilian nuclear power reactor.--The term `civilian
nuclear power reactor' means a civilian nuclear power plant
required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134(b)).
``(7) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
``(8) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Energy.
``(9) Disposal.--The term `disposal' means the emplacement
in a repository of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, or other highly radioactive material with no
foreseeable intent of recovery, whether or not such
emplacement permits recovery of such material for any future
purpose.
``(10) Disposal system.--The term `disposal system' means
all natural barriers and engineered barriers, and engineered
systems and components, that prevent the release of
radionuclides from the repository.
``(11) Engineered barriers.--The terms `engineered
barriers' and `engineered systems and components,' mean man
made components of a disposal system. Such terms include the
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste form,
spent nuclear fuel package or high-level radioactive waste
package, and other materials placed over and around such
packages.
``(12) High-level radioactive waste.--The term `high-level
radioactive waste' means--
``(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste
produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material
derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products
in sufficient concentrations;
``(B) the highly radioactive material resulting from atomic
energy defense activities; and
``(C) any other highly radioactive material that the
Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule
requires permanent isolation.
``(13) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means any
Executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code.
``(14) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services
provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior because
of their status as Indians including any Alaska Native
village, as defined in section 3(c) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(c)).
``(15) Integrated management system.--The term `integrated
management system' means the system developed by the
Secretary for the acceptance, transportation, storage, and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
``(16) Interim storage facility.--The term `interim storage
facility' means a facility designed and constructed for the
receipt, handling, possession, safeguarding, and storage of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in
accordance with title II of this Act.
``(17) Interim storage facility site.--The term `interim
storage facility site' means the specific site within Area 25
of the Nevada Test Site that is designated by the Secretary
and withdrawn and reserved in accordance with this Act for
the location of the interim storage facility.
``(18) Low-level radioactive waste.--The term `low-level
radioactive waste' means radioactive material that--
``(A) is not spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, transuranic waste, or byproduct material as defined in
section 11 e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(e)(2)); and
``(B) the Commission, consistent with existing law,
classifies as low-level radioactive waste.
``(19) Metric tons uranium.--The terms `metric tons
uranium' and `MTU' mean the amount of uranium in the original
unirradiated fuel element whether or not the spent nuclear
fuel has been reprocessed.
``(20) Nuclear waste fund.--The term `Nuclear Waste Fund'
means the nuclear waste fund established in the United States
Treasury prior to the date of enactment of this Act under
section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
``(21) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management established within the
Department prior to the date of enactment of this Act under
the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
``(22) Package.--The term `package' means the primary
container that holds, and is in direct contact with,
solidified high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel,
or other radioactive materials and any overpack that are
emplaced at a repository.
``(23) Program approach.--The term `program approach' means
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program Plan, dated
May 1996, as modified by this Act, and as amended from time
to time by the Secretary in accordance with this Act.
``(24) Repository.--The term `repository' means a system
designed and constructed under title II of this Act for the
permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste, including both surface and
subsurface areas at which spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste receipt, handling, possession,
safeguarding, and storage are conducted.
``(25) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Energy.
``(26) Site characterization.--The term `site
characterization' means activities, whether in a laboratory
or in the field, undertaken to establish the geologic
condition and the ranges of the parameters of a candidate
site relevant to the location of a repository, including
borings, surface excavations, excavations of exploratory
facilities, limited subsurface lateral excavations and
borings, and in situ testing needed to evaluate the
licensability of a candidate site for the location of a
repository, but not including preliminary borings and
geophysical testing needed to assess whether site
characterization should be undertaken.
``(27) Spent nuclear fuel.--The term `spent nuclear fuel'
means fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor
following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have
not been separated by reprocessing.
``(28) Storage.--The term `storage' means retention of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste with the
intent to recover such waste or fuel for subsequent use,
processing, or disposal.
``(29) Withdrawal.--The term `withdrawal' has the same
definition as that set forth in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.).
``(30) Yucca mountain site.--The term `Yucca Mountain site'
means the area in the State of Nevada that is withdrawn and
reserved in accordance with this Act for the location of a
repository.
``SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(1) while spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored at
reactor sites, the expeditious movement to and storage of
such spent nuclear fuel at a centralized Federal facility
will enhance the nation's environmental protection;
``(2) while the Federal Government has the responsibility
to provide for the centralized interim storage and permanent
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to protect the public health and safety and the
environment, the costs of such storage and disposal should be
the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste
and fuel, including the Federal Government;
``(3) in the interests of protecting the public health and
safety, enhancing the nation's environmental protection,
promoting the nation's energy security, and ensuring the
Secretary's ability to commence acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste no later than January
31, 2002, it is necessary for Congress to authorize the
interim storage facility;
``(4) deficit-control measures designed to limit
appropriation of general revenues have limited the
availability of the Nuclear Waste Fund for its intended
purposes; and
``(5) the Federal Government has the responsibility to
provide for the permanent disposal of waste generated from
United States atomic energy defense activities.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to direct the Secretary to develop an integrated
management system in accordance with this Act so that the
Department can accept spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste for interim storage commencing no later
than January 31, 2002, and for permanent disposal at a
repository commencing no later than January 17, 2010;
``(2) to provide for the siting, construction, and
operation of a repository for permanent geologic disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in order
to adequately protect the public and the environment;
``(3) to take those actions necessary to ensure that the
consumers of nuclear energy, who are funding the Secretary's
activities under this Act, receive the services to which they
are entitled and realize the benefits of enhanced protection
of public health and safety, and the environment, that will
ensue from the Secretary's compliance with the obligations
imposed by this Act; and
``(4) to provide a schedule and process for the expeditious
and safe development and commencement of operation of an
integrated management system and any necessary modifications
to the transportation infrastructure to ensure that the
Secretary can commence acceptance of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste no later than January 31, 2002.
``TITLE I--OBLIGATIONS
``SEC. 101. OBLIGATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY.
``(a) Disposal.--The Secretary shall develop and operate a
repository for the permanent geologic disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(b) Acceptance.--The Secretary shall accept spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste for storage at the
interim storage facility pursuant to section 204 in
accordance with the acceptance schedule, beginning not later
than January 31, 2002.
``(c) Transportation.--The Secretary shall provide for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste accepted by the Secretary.
``(d) Integrated Management System.--The Secretary shall
expeditiously pursue the development of each component of the
integrated management system, and in so doing shall seek to
utilize effective private sector management and contracting
practices.
[[Page H9673]]
``TITLE II--INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
``SEC. 201. INTERMODAL TRANSFER.
``(a) Transportation.--The Secretary shall utilize heavy-
haul truck transport to move spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste from the mainline rail line at
Caliente, Nevada, to the interim storage facility site. If
direct rail access becomes available to the interim storage
facility site, the Secretary may use rail transportation to
meet the requirements of this title.
``(b) Capability Date.--The Secretary shall develop the
capability to commence rail to truck intermodal transfer at
Caliente, Nevada, no later than January 31, 2002.
``(c) Acquisitions.--The Secretary shall acquire lands and
rights-of-way necessary to commence intermodal transfer at
Caliente, Nevada.
``(d) Replacements.--The Secretary shall acquire and
develop on behalf of, and dedicate to, the City of Caliente,
Nevada, parcels of land and rights-of-way as required to
facilitate replacement of land and city wastewater disposal
activities necessary to commence intermodal transfer pursuant
to this Act. Replacement of land and city wastewater disposal
activities shall occur no later than January 31, 2002.
``(e) Notice and Map.--Within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
``(1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the sites and rights-of-way to be
acquired under this section; and
``(2) file copies of a map of such sites and rights-of-way
with the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the State
of Nevada, the Archivist of the United States, the Board of
Lincoln County Commissioners, the Board of Nye County
Commissioners, and the Caliente City Council.
Such map and legal description shall have the same force and
effect as if they were included in this Act. The Secretary
may correct clerical and typographical errors in legal
descriptions and make minor adjustments in the boundaries.
``(f) Improvements.--The Secretary shall make improvements
to existing roadways selected for heavy-haul truck transport
between Caliente, Nevada, and the interim storage facility
site as necessary to facilitate year-round safe transport of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(g) Heavy-Haul Transportation Route.--
``(1) Designation of route.--The route for the heavy-haul
truck transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste shall be as designated in the map dated
July 21, 1997 (referred to as `Heavy-Haul Route') and on file
with the Secretary.
``(2) Truck transportation.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the State of Nevada and appropriate counties and local
jurisdictions, shall establish reasonable terms and
conditions pursuant to which the Secretary may utilize heavy-
haul truck transport to move spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste from Caliente, Nevada, to the interim
storage facility site.
``(3) Improvements and maintenance.--Notwithstanding any
other law--
``(A) the Secretary shall be responsible for any
incremental costs related to improving or upgrading Federal,
State, and local roads within the heavy-haul transportation
route utilized, and performing any maintenance activities on
such roads, as necessary, to facilitate year-round safe
transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste; and
``(B) any such improvement, upgrading, or maintenance
activity shall be funded solely by appropriations made
pursuant to sections 401 and 403 of this Act.
``(h) Local Government Involvement.--The Commission shall
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Caliente and Lincoln County, Nevada, to provide advice to the
Commission regarding intermodal transfer and to facilitate
on-site representation. Reasonable expenses of such
representation shall be paid by the Secretary.
``SEC. 202. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
``(a) Transportation Readiness.--The Secretary shall take
those actions that are necessary and appropriate to ensure
that the Secretary is able to accept and transport spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste beginning not
later than January 31, 2002. As soon as is practicable
following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
analyze each specific reactor facility in the order of
priority established in the acceptance schedule, and develop
a logistical plan to assure the Secretary's ability to
transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
``(b) Transportation Planning.--In conjunction with the
development of the logistical plan in accordance with
subsection (a), the Secretary shall update and modify, as
necessary, the Secretary's transportation institutional plans
to ensure that institutional issues are addressed and
resolved on a schedule to support the commencement of
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste to the interim storage facility no later
than January 31, 2002. Among other things, such planning
shall provide a schedule and process for addressing and
implementing, as necessary, transportation routing plans,
transportation contracting plans, transportation training in
accordance with section 203, and transportation tracking
programs.
``SEC. 203. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Package Certification.--No spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste may be transported by or for the
Secretary under this Act except in packages that have been
certified for such purposes by the Commission.
``(b) State Notification.--The Secretary shall abide by
regulations of the Commission regarding advance notification
of State and local governments prior to transportation of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste under this
Act.
``(c) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance and funds to States, affected units of local
government, and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the
Secretary plans to transport substantial amounts of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste for training for
public safety officials of appropriate units of local
government. Training shall cover procedures required for safe
routine transportation of these materials, as well as
procedures for dealing with emergency response situations.
The Secretary's duty to provide technical and financial
assistance under this subsection shall be limited to amounts
specified in annual appropriations.
``(2) Employee organizations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance and funds for training directly to nonprofit
employee organizations and joint labor-management
organizations that demonstrate experience in implementing and
operating worker health and safety training and education
programs and demonstrate the ability to reach and involve in
training programs target populations of workers who are or
will be directly engaged in the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste or emergency
response or post-emergency response with respect to such
transportation.
``(B) Training.--Training under this paragraph--
``(i) shall cover procedures required for safe routine
transportation of materials and procedures for dealing with
emergency response situations;
``(ii) shall be consistent with any training standards
established by the Secretary of Transportation; and
``(iii) shall include--
``(I) a training program applicable to persons responsible
for responding to emergency situations occurring during the
removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste;
``(II) instruction of public safety officers in procedures
for the command and control of the response to any incident
involving the waste; and
``(III) instruction of radiological protection and
emergency medical personnel in procedures for responding to
an incident involving spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste being transported.
``(3) Grants.--To implement this subsection, grants shall
be made under section 401(c).
``(4) Minimizing duplication of effort and expenses.--The
Secretaries of Transportation, Labor, and Energy, Directors
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall review periodically, with the head of
each department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Government, all emergency response and preparedness training
programs of that department, agency, or instrumentality to
minimize duplication of effort and expense of the department,
agency, or instrumentality in carrying out the programs and
shall take necessary action to minimize duplication.
``(d) Use of Private Carriers.--The Secretary, in providing
for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste under this Act, shall by contract use
private industry to the fullest extent possible in each
aspect of such transportation. The Secretary shall use direct
Federal services for such transportation only upon a
determination by the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary, that private industry is
unable or unwilling to provide such transportation services
at a reasonable cost.
``(e) Transfer of Title.--Acceptance by the Secretary of
any spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste shall
constitute a transfer of title to the Secretary.
``(f) Employee Protection.--Any person engaged in the
interstate commerce of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste under contract to the Secretary pursuant to
this Act shall be subject to and comply fully with the
employee protection provisions of section 20109 of title 49,
United States Code (in the case of employees of railroad
carriers), and section 31105 of title 49, United States Code
(in the case of employees operating commercial motor
vehicles), or the Commission (in the case of all other
employees).
``(g) Training Standard.--
``(1) Regulation.--No later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation,
pursuant to authority under other provisions of law, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Commission,
shall promulgate a regulation establishing training standards
applicable to workers directly involved in the removal and
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. The regulation shall specify minimum
training standards applicable to workers, including
managerial personnel. The regulation shall require that the
employer possess evidence of satisfaction of the applicable
training standard before any individual may be employed in
the removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste.
``(2) Secretary of Transportation.--If the Secretary of
Transportation determines, in promulgating the regulation
required by paragraph (1), that regulations promulgated by
the Commission establish adequate training standards for
workers, then the Secretary of Transportation can refrain
from promulgating additional regulations with respect to
worker training in such activities. The Secretary of
Transportation and the Commission shall use their Memorandum
of Understanding to ensure coordination of
[[Page H9674]]
worker training standards and to avoid duplicative
regulation.
``(3) Training standards content.--The training standards
required to be promulgated under paragraph (1) shall, among
other things deemed necessary and appropriate by the
Secretary of Transportation, include the following
provisions--
``(A) a specified minimum number of hours of initial off
site instruction and actual field experience under the direct
supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor;
``(B) a requirement that onsite managerial personnel
receive the same training as workers, and a minimum number of
additional hours of specialized training pertinent to their
managerial responsibilities; and
``(C) a training program applicable to persons responsible
for responding to and cleaning up emergency situations
occurring during the removal and transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(4) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, from general
revenues, such sums as may be necessary to perform his duties
under this subsection.
``SEC. 204. INTERIM STORAGE.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary shall design,
construct, and operate a facility for the interim storage of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the
interim storage facility site. The interim storage facility
shall be subject to licensing pursuant to the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) in accordance with the
Commission's regulations governing the licensing of
independent spent fuel storage installations and shall
commence operation in phases by January 31, 2002. The interim
storage facility shall store spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste until the Secretary is able to
transfer such fuel and waste to the repository.
``(b) Design.--The design of the interim storage facility
shall provide for the use of storage technologies licensed or
certified by the Commission for use at the interim storage
facility as necessary to ensure compatibility between the
interim storage facility and contract holders' spent nuclear
fuel and facilities, and to facilitate the Secretary's
ability to meet the Secretary's obligations under this Act.
``(c) Licensing.--
``(1) Phases.--The interim storage facility shall be
licensed by the Commission in two phases in order to commence
operations no later than January 31, 2002.
``(2) First phase.--No later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Commission an application for a license for the first phase
of the interim storage facility. The license issued for the
first phase of the interim storage facility shall have a term
of 20 years. The interim storage facility licensed in the
first phase shall have a capacity of not more than 10,000
MTU. The Commission shall issue a final decision granting or
denying the application for the first phase license no later
than 36 months from the date of the submittal of the
application for such license.
``(3) Second phase.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Commission an application for a license for the second phase
interim storage facility. The license for the second phase
facility shall authorize a storage capacity of 40,000 MTU.
The license for the second phase shall have an initial term
of up to 100 years, and shall be renewable for additional
terms upon application of the Secretary.
``(d) Additional Authority.--
``(1) Construction.--For the purpose of complying with
subsection (a), the Secretary may commence site preparation
for the interim storage facility as soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act and shall commence
construction of the first phase of the interim storage
facility subsequent to submittal of the license application
except that the Commission shall issue an order suspending
such construction at any time if the Commission determines
that such construction poses an unreasonable risk to public
health and safety or the environment. The Commission shall
terminate all or part of such order upon a determination that
the Secretary has taken appropriate action to eliminate such
risk.
``(2) Facility use.--Notwithstanding any otherwise
applicable licensing requirement, the Secretary may utilize
any facility owned by the Federal Government on the date of
enactment of this Act and within the boundaries of the
interim storage facility site, in connection with an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health and safety at
the interim storage facility prior to commencement of
operations during the second phase.
``(e) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--
``(1) Preliminary decisionmaking activities.--The
Secretary's activities under this section, including the
selection of a site for the interim storage facility, the
preparation and submittal of any license application, and the
construction and operation of any facility shall be
considered preliminary decisionmaking activities for purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). No such activity shall require the preparation
of an environmental impact statement under section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)) or require any environmental review under
subparagraph (E) or (F) of such Act.
``(2) Environmental impact statement.--
``(A) Final decision.--A final decision of the Commission
to grant or deny a license application for the first or
second phase of the interim storage facility shall be
accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement prepared
under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). In preparing such
Environmental Impact Statement, the Commission--
``(i) shall assume that 40,000 MTU will be stored at the
facility; and
``(ii) shall analyze the impacts of the transportation of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the
interim storage facility in a generic manner.
``(B) Considerations.--Such Environmental Impact Statement
shall not consider--
``(i) the need for the interim storage facility, including
any individual component thereof;
``(ii) the time of the initial availability of the interim
storage facility;
``(iii) any alternatives to the storage of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the interim storage
facility;
``(iv) any alternatives to the site of the facility as
designated by the Secretary in accordance with subsection
(a);
``(v) any alternatives to the design criteria for such
facility or any individual component thereof, as specified by
the Secretary in the license application; or
``(vi) the environmental impacts of the storage of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the interim
storage facility beyond the initial term of the license or
the term of the renewal period for which a license renewal
application is made.
``(f) Judicial Review.--Judicial review of the Commission's
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
shall be consolidated with judicial review of the
Commission's licensing decision. No court shall have
jurisdiction to enjoin the construction or operation of the
interim storage facility prior to its final decision on
review of the Commission's licensing action.
``(g) Waste Confidence.--The Secretary's obligation to
construct and operate the interim storage facility in
accordance with this section and the Secretary's obligation
to develop an integrated management system in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, shall provide sufficient and
independent grounds for any further findings by the
Commission of reasonable assurance that spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of safely
and on a timely basis for purposes of the Commission's
decision to grant or amend any license to operate any
civilian nuclear power reactor under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act shall affect the
Commission's procedures for the licensing of any technology
for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at the site of any
civilian nuclear power reactor as adopted by the Commission
under section 218 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
in effect prior to the date of the enactment of this Act. The
establishment of such procedures shall not preclude the
licensing, under any applicable procedures or rules of the
Commission in effect prior to such establishment, of any
technology for the storage of civilian spent nuclear fuel at
the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.
``SEC. 205. PERMANENT DISPOSAL.
``(a) Site Characterization.--
``(1) Guidelines.--The guidelines promulgated by the
Secretary and published at 10 CFR part 960 are annulled and
revoked and the Secretary shall make no assumptions or
conclusions about the licensability of the Yucca Mountain
site as a repository by reference to such guidelines.
``(2) Site characterization activities.--The Secretary
shall carry out appropriate site characterization activities
at the Yucca Mountain site in accordance with the Secretary's
program approach to site characterization if the Secretary
modifies or eliminates those site characterization activities
designed to demonstrate the suitability of the site under the
guidelines referenced in paragraph (1).
``(3) Date.--No later than December 31, 2002, the Secretary
shall apply to the Commission for authorization to construct
a repository that will commence operations no later than
January 17, 2010. If, at any time prior to the filing of such
application, the Secretary determines that the Yucca Mountain
site cannot satisfy the Commission's regulations applicable
to the licensing of a geologic repository, the Secretary
shall terminate site characterization activities at the site,
notify Congress and the State of Nevada of the Secretary's
determination and the reasons therefor, and recommend to
Congress not later than 6 months after such determination
further actions, including the enactment of legislation, that
may be needed to manage the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste.
``(4) Maximizing capacity.--In developing an application
for authorization to construct the repository, the Secretary
shall seek to maximize the capacity of the repository.
``(b) Licensing.--Within one year of the date of enactment
of this Act, the Commission shall amend its regulations
governing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste in geologic repositories to the extent
necessary to comply with this Act. Subject to subsection (c),
such regulations shall provide for the licensing of the
repository according to the following procedures:
``(1) Construction authorization.--The Commission shall
grant the Secretary a construction authorization for the
repository upon determining that there is reasonable
assurance that spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste can be disposed of in the repository--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application, the
provisions of this Act, and the regulations of the
Commission;
``(B) with adequate protection of the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
[[Page H9675]]
``(2) License.--Following substantial completion of
construction and the filing of any additional information
needed to complete the license application, the Commission
shall issue a license to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste in the repository if the
Commission determines that the repository has been
constructed and will operate--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application, the
provisions of this Act, and the regulations of the
Commission;
``(B) with adequate protection of the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
``(3) Closure.--After emplacing spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste in the repository and collecting
sufficient confirmatory data on repository performance to
reasonably confirm the basis for repository closure
consistent with the Commission's regulations applicable to
the licensing of a repository, as modified in accordance with
this Act, the Secretary shall apply to the Commission to
amend the license to permit permanent closure of the
repository. The Commission shall grant such license amendment
upon finding that there is reasonable assurance that the
repository can be permanently closed--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application to
amend the license, the provisions of this Act, and the
regulations of the Commission;
``(B) with adequate protection of the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
``(4) Post-closure.--The Secretary shall take those actions
necessary and appropriate at the Yucca Mountain site to
prevent any activity at the site subsequent to repository
closure that poses an unreasonable risk of--
``(A) breaching the repository's engineered or geologic
barriers: or
``(B) increasing the exposure of individual members of the
public to radiation beyond the release standard established
in subsection (d)(1).
``(c) Modification of Repository Licensing Procedure.--The
Commission's regulations shall provide for the modification
of the repository licensing procedure, as appropriate, in the
event that the Secretary seeks a license to permit the
emplacement in the repository, on a retrievable basis, of
only that quantity of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste that is necessary to provide the Secretary
with sufficient confirmatory data on repository performance
to reasonably confirm the basis for repository closure
consistent with applicable regulations.
``(d) Licensing Standards.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall not promulgate, by rule or otherwise,
standards for protection of the public from releases of
radioactive materials or radioactivity from the repository
and any such standards existing on the date of enactment of
this Act shall not be incorporated in the Commission's
licensing regulations. The Commission's repository licensing
determinations for the protection of the public shall be
based solely on a finding whether the repository can be
operated in conformance with the overall system performance
standard established in paragraph (1)(A) and applied in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)(B). The
Commission shall amend its regulations in accordance with
subsection (b) to incorporate each of the following licensing
standards:
``(1) Release standard.--
``(A) Establishment of overall system performance
standard.--The standard for protection of the public from
release of radioactive material or radioactivity from the
repository shall prohibit releases that would expose an
average member of the general population in the vicinity of
the Yucca Mountain site to an annual dose in excess of 100
millirems unless the Commission, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
determines by rule that such standard would not provide for
adequate protection of the health and safety of the public
and establishes by rule another standard which will provide
for adequate protection of the health and safety of the
public. Such standard shall constitute an overall system
performance standard.
``(B) Application of overall system performance standard.--
The Commission shall issue the license if it finds reasonable
assurance that--
``(i) for the first 1,000 years following the commencement
of repository operations, the overall system performance
standard will be met based on a deterministic or
probabilistic evaluation of the overall performance of the
disposal system; and
``(ii) for the period commencing after the first 1,000
years of operation of the repository and terminating at
10,000 years after the commencement of operation of the
repository, there is likely to be compliance with the overall
system performance standard based on regulatory insight
gained through the use of a probabilistic integrated
performance model that uses best estimate assumptions, data,
and methods.
``(2) Human intrusion.--The Commission shall assume that,
following repository closure, the inclusion of engineered
barriers and the Secretary's post-closure actions at the
Yucca Mountain site, in accordance with subsection (b)(3),
shall be sufficient to--
``(A) prevent any human activity at the site that poses an
unreasonable risk of breaching the repository's engineered or
geologic barriers; and
``(B) prevent any increase in the exposure of individual
members of the public to radiation beyond allowable limits as
specified in paragraph (1).
``(e) National Environmental Policy Act.--
``(1) Submission of statement.--Construction and operation
of the repository shall be considered a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary shall submit an
environmental impact statement on the construction and
operation of the repository to the Commission with the
application for construction authorization.
``(2) Considerations.--For purposes of complying with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and this section, the Secretary shall not consider in the
environmental impact statement the need for the repository,
alternative sites for the repository, the time of the initial
availability of the repository, or any alternatives to the
isolation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste in a repository.
``(3) Adoption by commission.--The Secretary's
environmental impact statement and any supplements thereto
shall, to the extent practicable, be adopted by the
Commission in connection with the issuance by the Commission
of a construction authorization under subsection (b)(1), a
license under subsection (b)(2), or a license amendment under
subsection (b)(3). To the extent such statement or supplement
is adopted by the Commission, such adoption shall be deemed
to also satisfy the responsibilities of the Commission under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and no further
consideration shall be required, except that nothing in this
subsection shall affect any independent responsibilities of
the Commission to protect the public health and safety under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). In
any such statement prepared with respect to the repository,
the Commission shall not consider the need for a repository,
the time of initial availability of the repository, alternate
sites to the Yucca Mountain site, or nongeologic alternatives
to such site.
``(f) Judicial Review.--No court shall have jurisdiction to
enjoin issuance of the Commission repository licensing
regulations prior to its final decision on review of such
regulations.
``SEC. 206. LAND WITHDRAWAL.
``(a) Withdrawal and Reservation.--
``(1) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site, as
described in subsection (b), are withdrawn from all forms of
entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land
laws, including the mineral leasing laws, the geothermal
leasing laws, the material sale laws, and the mining laws.
``(2) Jurisdiction.--Jurisdiction of any land within the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site
managed by the Secretary of the Interior or any other Federal
officer is transferred to the Secretary.
``(3) Reservation.--The interim storage facility site and
the Yucca Mountain site are reserved for the use of the
Secretary for the construction and operation, respectively,
of the interim storage facility and the repository and
activities associated with the purposes of this title.
``(b) Land Description.--
``(1) Boundaries.--The boundaries depicted on the map
entitled `Interim Storage Facility Site Withdrawal Map,'
dated July 28, 1995, and on file with the Secretary, are
established as the boundaries of the interim storage facility
site.
``(2) Boundaries.--The boundaries depicted on the map
entitled `Yucca Mountain Site Withdrawal Map,' dated July 28,
1995, and on file with the Secretary, are established as the
boundaries of the Yucca Mountain site.
``(3) Notice and maps.--Within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
``(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the interim storage facility site; and
``(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (1),
and the legal description of the interim storage facility
site with the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Governor of Nevada, and the Archivist of the United States.
``(4) Notice and maps.--Concurrent with the Secretary's
application to the Commission for authority to construct the
repository, the Secretary shall--
``(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the Yucca Mountain site; and
``(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (2),
and the legal description of the Yucca Mountain site with the
Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of
Nevada, and the Archivist of the United States.
``(5) Construction.--The maps and legal descriptions of the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site
referred to in this subsection shall have the same force and
effect as if they were included in this Act. The Secretary
may correct clerical and typographical errors in the maps and
legal descriptions and make minor adjustments in the
boundaries of the sites.
``SEC. 207. PRIVATE STORAGE FACILITIES.
``(a) Commission Action.--Upon application by one or more
private entities for a license for an independent spent fuel
storage installation not located at the site of a civilian
nuclear power reactor, the Commission shall review such
license application and issue a license for one or more such
facilities at the earliest practicable date, to the extent
permitted by the applicable provisions of law and regulation.
``(b) Secretary's Actions.--The Secretary shall encourage
efforts to develop private facilities for the storage of
spent nuclear fuel by providing any requested information and
assistance, as appropriate, to the developers of such
facilities and to State and local governments and Indian
tribes within whose jurisdictions such facilities may be
located, and shall cooperate with the developers of such
facilities to facilitate compatibility between such
facilities and the integrated management system.
[[Page H9676]]
``(c) Obligation.--The Secretary shall satisfy the
Secretary's obligations under this Act notwithstanding the
development of private facilities for the storage of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``TITLE III--LOCAL RELATIONS
``SEC. 301. ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE.
``The Secretary shall offer to Nye County, Nevada, an
opportunity to designate a representative to conduct on-site
oversight activities at the Yucca Mountain site. Reasonable
expenses of such representatives shall be paid by the
Secretary.
``SEC. 302. BENEFITS AGREEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Separate agreements.--The Secretary shall offer to
enter into separate agreements with Nye County, Nevada, and
Lincoln County, Nevada, concerning the integrated management
system.
``(2) Agreement content.--Any agreement shall contain such
terms and conditions, including such financial and
institutional arrangements, as the Secretary and agreement
entity determine to be reasonable and appropriate and shall
contain such provisions as are necessary to preserve any
right to participation or compensation of Nye County, Nevada,
and Lincoln County, Nevada.
``(b) Amendment.--An agreement entered into under
subsection (a) may be amended only with the mutual consent of
the parties to the amendment and terminated only in
accordance with subsection (c).
``(c) Termination.--The Secretary shall terminate an
agreement under subsection (a) if any element of the
integrated management system may not be completed.
``(d) Limitation.--Only 1 agreement each for Nye County,
Nevada, and Lincoln County, Nevada, may be in effect at any
one time.
``(e) Judicial Review.--Decisions of the Secretary under
this section are not subject to judicial review.
``SEC. 303. CONTENT OF AGREEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Schedule.--The Secretary, subject to appropriations,
shall make payments to the party of a benefits agreement
under section 302(a) in accordance with the following
schedule:
``BENEFITS SCHEDULE
[Amounts in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Annual payments prior to first receipt of fuel........... $2.5
(B) Upon first spent fuel receipt............................ $5
(C) Annual payments after first spent fuel receipt until $5
closure of facility.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
term--
``(A) `spent fuel' means high-level radioactive waste or
spent nuclear fuel; and
``(B) `first spent fuel receipt' does not include receipt
of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste for purposes of
testing or operational demonstration.
``(3) Annual payments.--Annual payments prior to first
spent fuel receipt under line (A) of the benefit schedule
shall be made on the date of execution of the benefits
agreement and thereafter on the anniversary date of such
execution. Annual payments after the first spent fuel receipt
until closure of the facility under line (C) of the benefit
schedule shall be made on the anniversary date of such first
spent fuel receipt.
``(4) Reduction.--If the first spent fuel payment under
line (B) is made within 6 months after the last annual
payment prior to the receipt of spent fuel under line (A) of
the benefit schedule, such first spent fuel payment under
line (B) of the benefit schedule shall be reduced by an
amount equal to \1/12\ of such annual payment under line (A)
of the benefit schedule for each full month less than 6 that
has not elapsed since the last annual payment under line (A)
of the benefit schedule.
``(b) Contents.--A benefits agreement under section 302
shall provide that--
``(1) the parties to the agreement shall share with one
another information relevant to the licensing process for the
interim storage facility or repository, as it becomes
available; and
``(2) the affected unit of local government that is party
to such agreement may comment on the development of the
integrated management system and on documents required under
law or regulations governing the effects of the system on the
public health and safety.
``(c) Construction.--The signature of the Secretary on a
valid benefits agreement under section 302 shall constitute a
commitment by the United States to make payments in
accordance with such agreement.
``SEC. 304. ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS.
``(a) Consent.--The acceptance or use of any of the
benefits provided under this title by any affected unit of
local government shall not be deemed to be an expression of
consent, express, or denied, either under the Constitution of
the State of Nevada or any law thereof, to the siting of the
interim storage facility or repository in the State of
Nevada, any provision of such Constitution or laws to the
contrary notwithstanding.
``(b) Arguments.--Neither the United States nor any other
entity may assert any argument based on legal or equitable
estoppel, or acquiescence, or waiver, or consensual
involvement, in response to any decision by the State of
Nevada, to oppose the siting in Nevada of the interim storage
facility or repository premised upon or related to the
acceptance or use of benefits under this title.
``(c) Liability.--No liability of any nature shall accrue
to be asserted against the State of Nevada, its Governor, any
official thereof, or any official of any governmental unit
thereof, premised solely upon the acceptance or use of
benefits under this title.
``SEC. 305. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS.
``None of the funding provided under section 303 may be
used--
``(1) directly or indirectly to influence legislative
action on any matter pending before Congress or a State
legislature or for any lobbying activity as provided in
section 1913 of title 18, United States Code;
``(2) for litigation purposes; and
``(3) to support multistate efforts or other coalition-
building activities inconsistent with the purposes of this
Act.
``SEC. 306. INITIAL LAND CONVEYANCES.
``(a) Conveyance of Public Lands.--Within 120 days after
October 1, 1998, the Secretary of the Interior, or other
agency with jurisdiction over the public lands described in
subsection (b), shall convey the public lands described in
subsection (b) to the appropriate county, unless the county
notifies the Secretary of the Interior or the head of such
other appropriate agency in writing within 60 days of such
date of enactment that it elects not to take title to all or
any part of the property, except that any lands conveyed to
the County of Nye, County of Lincoln, or the City of Caliente
under this subsection that are subject to a Federal grazing
permit or a similar federally granted privilege shall be
conveyed between 60 and 120 days of the earliest time the
Federal agency administering or granting the privilege would
be able to legally terminate such privilege under the
statutes and regulations existing on October 1, 1998, unless
the Federal agency, county or city, and the affected holder
of the privilege negotiate an agreement that allows for an
earlier conveyance, but in no case to occur earlier than
October 1, 1998.
``(b) Special Conveyances.--Subject to valid existing
rights and notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of
the Interior or the head of the other appropriate agency
shall convey:
``(1) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and on
file with the Secretary:
``Map 1: Proposed Pahrump Industrial Park Site
``Map 2: Proposed Lathrop Wells (Gate 510) Industrial Park
Site
``Map 3: Pahrump Landfill Sites
``Map 4: Amargosa Valley Regional Landfill Site
``Map 5: Amargosa Valley Municipal Landfill Site
``Map 6: Beatty Landfill/Transfer station Site
``Map 7: Round Mountain Landfill Site
``Map 8: Tonopah Landfill Site
``Map 9: Gabbs Landfill Site.
``(2) To the County of Lincoln, Nevada, the following
public lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and
on file with the Secretary:
``Map 2: Lincoln County, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
Jointly with the City of Caliente
``Map 3: Lincoln County, Parcels F and G, Mixed Use,
Industrial Sites
``Map 4: Lincoln County, Parcels H and I, Mixed Use and
Airport Expansion Sites
``Map 5: Lincoln County, Parcels J and K, Mixed Use,
Airport and Landfill Expansion Sites
``Map 6: Lincoln County, Parcels E and L, Mixed Use,
Airport and Industrial Expansion Sites.
``(3) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and on
file with the Secretary:
``Map 1: City of Caliente, Parcels A, B, C and D, Community
Growth, Landfill Expansion and Community Recreation Sites
``Map 2: City of Caliente, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
jointly with Lincoln County.
``(c) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--The
activities of the Secretary and the head of any other Federal
agency in connection with subsections (a) and (b) shall be
considered preliminary decision making activities. No such
activity shall require the preparation of an environmental
impact statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) or
any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of
section 102(2) of such Act.
``SEC. 307. PAYMENTS EQUAL TO TAXES.
``(a) Taxable Amounts.--In addition to financial assistance
provided under this title, the Secretary is authorized to
grant to any affected Indian tribe or affected unit of local
government an amount each fiscal year equal to the amount
such affected Indian tribe or affected unit of local
government, respectively, would receive if authorized to tax
integrated management system activities, as such affected
Indian tribe or affected unit of local government taxes the
non-Federal real property and industrial activities occurring
within such affected unit of local government.
``(b) Termination.--Such grants shall continue until such
time as all such activities, development, and operations are
terminated at such site.
``(c) Assistance to Indian Tribes and Units of Local
Government.--
``(1) Period.--Any affected Indian tribe or affected unit
of local government may not receive any grant under
subsection (a) after the expiration of the 1-year period
following the date on which the Secretary notifies the
affected Indian tribe or affected unit of local government of
the termination of the operation of the integrated management
system.
``(2) Activities.--Any affected Indian tribe or affected
unit of local government may not
[[Page H9677]]
receive any further assistance under this section if the
integrated management system activities at such site are
terminated by the Secretary or if such activities are
permanently enjoined by any court.
``TITLE IV--FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION
``SEC. 401. PROGRAM FUNDING.
``(a) Contracts.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--In the performance of the
Secretary's functions under this Act, the Secretary is
authorized to enter into contracts with any person who
generates or holds title to spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste of domestic origin for the acceptance of
title and possession, transportation, interim storage, and
disposal of such spent fuel or waste upon the payment of fees
in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). Except as provided
in paragraph (3), fees assessed pursuant to this paragraph
shall be paid to the Treasury of the United States and shall
be available for use by the Secretary pursuant to this
section until expended.
``(2) Annual fees.--
``(A) Electricity.--
``(i) In general.--Under a contract entered into under
paragraph (1) there shall be a fee for electricity generated
by civilian nuclear power reactors and sold on or after the
date of enactment of this Act. The aggregate amount of such
fees collected during each fiscal year shall be no greater
than the annual level of appropriations for expenditures on
the integrated management system for that fiscal year,
minus--
``(I) any unobligated balance of fees collected during the
previous fiscal year; and
``(II) such appropriations required to be funded by the
Federal Government pursuant to section 403.
``(ii) Fee level.--The Secretary shall determine the level
of the annual fee for each civilian nuclear power reactor
based on the amount of electricity generated and sold, except
that for the period commencing with fiscal year 1999 and
continuing through the fiscal year in which disposal at the
repository commences--
``(I) the average annual fee collected under this
subparagraph shall not exceed 1.0 mill per-kilowatt hour
generated and sold; and
``(II) the fee in any fiscal year in such period shall not
exceed 1.5 mill per kilowatt hour generated and sold.
Thereafter, the annual fee collected under this subparagraph
shall not exceed 1.0 mill per-kilowatt hour generated and
sold. Fees assessed pursuant to this subparagraph shall be
paid to the Treasury of the United States and shall be
available for use by the Secretary pursuant to this section
until expended.
``(B) Expenditures if shortfall.--If, during any fiscal
year, the aggregate amount of fees assessed pursuant to
subparagraph (A) is less than the annual level of
appropriations for expenditures on those activities specified
in subsection (d) for that fiscal year, minus--
``(i) any unobligated balance collected pursuant to this
section during the previous fiscal year, and
``(ii) such appropriations required to be funded by the
Federal Government pursuant to section 403,
the Secretary may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste
Fund up to the level of appropriations.
``(C) Rules.--The Secretary shall, by rule, establish
procedures necessary to implement this paragraph.
``(3) One-time fees.--The one-time fees collected under
contracts executed under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 before the date of enactment of this Act
on spent nuclear fuel, or high-level radioactive waste
derived from spent nuclear fuel, which fuel was used to
generate electricity in a civilian nuclear power reactor
before April 7, 1983, shall be paid to the Nuclear Waste
Fund. The Secretary shall collect all such fees before the
expiration of fiscal year 2002. The Commission shall suspend
the license of any licensee who fails or refuses to pay the
full amount of the fee referred to in this paragraph and the
license shall remain suspended until the full amount of the
fee referred to in this paragraph is paid. In paying such a
fee, the person delivering such spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive wastes, to the Secretary shall have no
further financial obligation under this paragraph to the
Federal Government for the long-term storage and permanent
disposal of such spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive
waste.
``(b) Advance Contracting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) License issuance and renewal.--The Commission shall
not issue or renew a license to any person to use a
utilization or production facility under the authority of
section 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2133, 2134) unless--
``(i) such person has entered into a contract under
subsection (a) with the Secretary; or
``(ii) the Secretary affirms in writing that such person is
actively and in good faith negotiating with the Secretary for
a contract under subsection (a).
``(B) Precondition.--The Commission, as it deems necessary
or appropriate, may require as a precondition to the issuance
or renewal of a license under section 103 or 104 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134) that the
applicant for such license shall have entered into an
agreement with the Secretary for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that may result
from the use of such license.
``(2) Disposal in repository.--Except as provided in
paragraph (1), no spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste generated or owned by any person (other
than a department of the United States referred to in section
101 or 102 of title 5, United States Code) may be disposed of
by the Secretary in the repository unless the generator or
owner of such spent fuel or waste has entered into a contract
under subsection (a) with the Secretary by not later than the
date on which such generator or owner commences generation
of, or takes title to, such spent fuel or waste.
``(3) Assignment.--The rights and duties of a party to a
contract entered into under this section may be assignable
with transfer of title to the spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste involved.
``(4) Disposal condition.--No spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste generated or owned by any department
of the United States referred to in section 101 or 102 of
title 5, United States Code, may be stored or disposed of by
the Secretary at the interim storage facility or repository
in the integrated management system developed under this Act
unless, in each fiscal year, such department funds its
appropriate portion of the costs of such storage and disposal
as specified in section 403.
``(c) Nuclear Waste Fund.--
``(1) In general.--The Nuclear Waste Fund established in
the Treasury of the United States under section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 shall continue in effect
under this Act and shall consist of--
``(A) all receipts, proceeds, and recoveries realized by
the Secretary before the date of enactment of this Act;
``(B) any appropriations made by the Congress before the
date of enactment of this Act to the Nuclear Waste Fund;
``(C) all interest paid on amounts invested by the
Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph (3)(B); and
``(D) the one-time fees collected pursuant to subsection
(a)(3).
``(2) Use.--The Nuclear Waste Fund shall be used only for
purposes of the integrated management system.
``(3) Administration of nuclear waste fund.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold
the Nuclear Waste Fund and, after consultation with the
Secretary, annually report to the Congress on the financial
condition and operations of the Nuclear Waste Fund during the
preceding fiscal year.
``(B) Amounts in excess of current needs.--If the Secretary
determines that the Nuclear Waste Fund contains at any time
amounts in excess of current needs, the Secretary may request
the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such amounts, or any
portion of such amounts as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, in obligations of the United States--
``(i) having maturities determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury to be appropriate to the needs of the Nuclear Waste
Fund; and
``(ii) bearing interest at rates determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into
consideration the current average market yield on outstanding
marketable obligations of the United States with remaining
periods to maturity comparable to the maturities of such
investments, except that the interest rate on such
investments shall not exceed the average interest rate
applicable to existing borrowings.
``(C) Exemption.--Receipts, proceeds, and recoveries
realized by the Secretary under this section, and
expenditures of amounts from the Nuclear Waste Fund, shall be
exempt from annual apportionment under the provisions of
subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code.
``(d) Use of Appropriated Funds.--During each fiscal year,
the Secretary may make expenditures of funds collected after
the date of enactment of this Act under this section and
section 403, up to the level of appropriations for that
fiscal year pursuant to subsection (f) only for purposes of
the integrated management system.
``(e) Prohibition on Use of Appropriations and Nuclear
Waste Fund.--The Secretary shall not make expenditures of
funds collected pursuant to this section or section 403 to
design or construct packages for the transportation, storage,
or disposal of spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear power
reactors.
``(f) Appropriations.--
``(1) Budget.--The Secretary shall submit the budget for
implementation of the Secretary's responsibilities under this
Act to the Office of Management and Budget triennially along
with the budget of the Department of Energy submitted at such
time in accordance with chapter 11 of title 31, United States
Code. The budget shall consist of the estimates made by the
Secretary of expenditures under this Act and other relevant
financial matters for the succeeding 3 fiscal years, and
shall be included in the budget of the United States
Government.
``(2) Appropriations.--Appropriations shall be subject to
triennial authorization. During each fiscal year, the
Secretary may make expenditures, up to the level of
appropriations, out of the funds collected pursuant to this
section and section 403, if the Secretary transmits the
amounts appropriated for implementation of this Act to the
Commission and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in
appropriate proportion to the collection of such funds.
``(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect
October 1, 1998, and section 302 of
[[Page H9678]]
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222) shall
continue in effect until October 1, 1998.
``SEC. 402. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT.
``(a) Continuation of Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.--The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management established under section 304(a) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 as constituted prior to the date of
enactment of this Act, shall continue in effect subsequent to
the date of enactment of this Act.
``(b) Functions of Director.--The Director of the Office
shall be responsible for carrying out the functions of the
Secretary under this Act, subject to the general supervision
of the Secretary. The Director of the Office shall be
directly responsible to the Secretary.
``(c) Audits.--
``(1) Standard.--The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, its contractors, and subcontractors at all tiers,
shall conduct, or have conducted, audits and examinations of
their operations in accordance with the usual and customary
practices of private corporations engaged in large nuclear
construction projects consistent with its role in the
program.
``(2) Time.--The management practices and performances of
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management shall be
audited every 5 years by an independent management consulting
firm with significant experience in similar audits of private
corporations engaged in large nuclear construction projects.
The first such audit shall be conducted 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
``(3) Comptroller general.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall annually make an audit of the Office, in
accordance with such regulations as the Comptroller General
may prescribe. The Comptroller General shall have access to
such books, records, accounts, and other materials of the
Office as the Comptroller General determines to be necessary
for the preparation of such audit. The Comptroller General
shall submit to the Congress a report on the results of each
audit conducted under this section.
``(4) Time.--No audit contemplated by this subsection shall
take longer than 30 days to conduct. An audit report shall be
issued in final form no longer than 60 days after the audit
is commenced.
``(5) Public documents.--All audit reports shall be public
documents and available to any individual upon request.
``SEC. 403. DEFENSE CONTRIBUTION.
``(a) Allocation.--No later than one year from the date of
enactment of this Act, acting pursuant to section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, the Secretary shall issue a
final rule establishing the appropriate portion of the costs
of managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste under this Act allocable to the interim storage or
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste from atomic energy defense activities, and
spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors. The share
of costs allocable to the management of spent nuclear fuel,
high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy defense
activities, and spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
reactors shall include--
``(1) an appropriate portion of the costs associated with
research and development activities with respect to
development of the interim storage facility and repository;
and
``(2) interest on the principal amounts due calculated by
reference to the appropriate Treasury bill rate as if the
payments were made at a point in time consistent with the
payment dates for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste under the contracts.
``(b) Appropriation Request.--In addition to any request
for an appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the
Secretary shall request annual appropriations from general
revenues in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of the
management of materials described in subsection (a).
``(c) Report.--In conjunction with the annual report
submitted to Congress under section 702, the Secretary shall
advise the Congress annually of the amount of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy
defense activities, and spent nuclear fuel from foreign
research reactors requiring management in the integrated
management system.
``(d) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary, from general revenues, for
carrying out the purposes of this Act, such sums as may be
necessary to pay the costs of the management of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy
defense activities as established under subsection (a).
``TITLE V--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``SEC. 501. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS.
``If the requirements of any law are inconsistent with or
duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and this Act, the Secretary
shall comply only with the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and this Act in implementing the integrated
management system. Any requirement of a State or political
subdivision of a State is preempted if--
``(1) complying with such requirement and a requirement of
this Act is impossible; or
``(2) such requirement, as applied or enforced, is an
obstacle to accomplishing or carrying out this Act or a
regulation under this Act.
``SEC. 502. WATER RIGHTS.
``(a) No Federal Reservation.--Nothing in this Act or any
other Act of Congress shall constitute or be construed to
constitute either an express or implied Federal reservation
of water or water rights for any purpose arising under this
Act.
``(b) Acquisition and Exercise of Water Rights Under Nevada
Law.--The United States may acquire and exercise such water
rights as it deems necessary to carry out its
responsibilities under this Act pursuant to the substantive
and procedural requirements of the State of Nevada. Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to authorize the use of
eminent domain by the United States to acquire water rights.
``(c) Exercise of Water Rights Generally Under Nevada
Laws.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the
exercise of water rights as provided under Nevada State laws.
``SEC. 503. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS.
``(a) Jurisdiction of United States Courts of Appeals.--
``(1) Original and exclusive jurisdiction.--Except for
review in the Supreme Court of the United States, and except
as otherwise provided in this Act, the United States courts
of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over any civil action--
``(A) for review of any final decision or action of the
Secretary, the President, or the Commission under this Act;
``(B) alleging the failure of the Secretary, the President,
or the Commission to make any decision, or take any action,
required under this Act;
``(C) challenging the constitutionality of any decision
made, or action taken, under any provision of this Act; or
``(D) for review of any environmental impact statement
prepared or environmental assessment made pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) with respect to any action under this Act or alleging a
failure to prepare such statement with respect to any such
action.
``(2) Venue.--The venue of any proceeding under this
section shall be in the judicial circuit in which the
petitioner involved resides or has its principal office, or
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
``(b) Deadline for Commencing Action.--A civil action for
judicial review described under subsection (a)(1) may be
brought no later than 180 days after the date of the decision
or action or failure to act involved, as the case may be,
except that if a party shows that the party did not know of
the decision or action complained of or of the failure to
act, and that a reasonable person acting under the
circumstances would not have known of such decision, action,
or failure to act, such party may bring a civil action no
later than 180 days after the date such party acquired actual
or constructive knowledge of such decision, action, or
failure to act.
``(c) Application of Other Law.--The provisions of this
section relating to any matter shall apply in lieu of the
provisions of any other Act relating to the same matter.
``SEC. 504. LICENSING OF FACILITY EXPANSIONS AND
TRANSSHIPMENTS.
``(a) Oral Argument.--In any Commission hearing under
section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239)
on an application for a license, or for an amendment to an
existing license, filed after January 7, 1983, to expand the
spent nuclear fuel storage capacity at the site of a civilian
nuclear power reactor, through the use of high-density fuel
storage racks, fuel rod compaction, the transshipment of
spent nuclear fuel to another civilian nuclear power reactor
within the same utility system, the construction of
additional spent nuclear fuel pool capacity or dry storage
capacity, or by other means, the Commission shall, at the
request of any party, provide an opportunity for oral
argument with respect to any matter which the Commission
determines to be in controversy among the parties. The oral
argument shall be preceded by such discovery procedures as
the rules of the Commission shall provide. The Commission
shall require each party, including the Commission staff, to
submit in written form, at the time of the oral argument, a
summary of the facts, data, and arguments upon which such
party proposes to rely that are known at such time to such
party. Only facts and data in the form of sworn testimony or
written submission may be relied upon by the parties during
oral argument. Of the materials that may be submitted by the
parties during oral argument, the Commission shall only
consider those facts and data that are submitted in the form
of sworn testimony or written submission.
``(b) Adjudicatory Hearing.--
``(1) Designation.--At the conclusion of any oral argument
under subsection (a), the Commission shall designate any
disputed question of fact, together with any remaining
questions of law, for resolution in an adjudicatory hearing
only if it determines that--
``(A) there is a genuine and substantial dispute of fact
which can only be resolved with sufficient accuracy by the
introduction of evidence in an adjudicatory hearing; and
``(B) the decision of the Commission is likely to depend in
whole or in part on the resolution of such dispute.
``(2) Determination.--In making a determination under this
subsection, the Commission--
[[Page H9679]]
``(A) shall designate in writing the specific facts that
are in genuine and substantial dispute, the reason why the
decision of the agency is likely to depend on the resolution
of such facts, and the reason why an adjudicatory hearing is
likely to resolve the dispute; and
``(B) shall not consider--
``(i) any issue relating to the design, construction, or
operation of any civilian nuclear power reactor already
licensed to operate at such site, or any civilian nuclear
power reactor to which a construction permit has been granted
at such site, unless the Commission determines that any such
issue substantially affects the design, construction, or
operation of the facility or activity for which such license
application, authorization, or amendment is being considered;
or
``(ii) any siting or design issue fully considered and
decided by the Commission in connection with the issuance of
a construction permit or operating license for a civilian
nuclear power reactor at such site, unless--
``(I) such issue results from any revision of siting or
design criteria by the Commission following such decision;
and
``(II) the Commission determines that such issue
substantially affects the design, construction, or operation
of the facility or activity for which such license
application, authorization, or amendment is being considered.
``(3) Application.--The provisions of paragraph (2)(B)
shall apply only with respect to licenses, authorizations, or
amendments to licenses or authorizations, applied for under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) before
December 31, 2005.
``(4) Construction.--The provisions of this section shall
not apply to the first application for a license or license
amendment received by the Commission to expand onsite spent
fuel storage capacity by the use of a new technology not
previously approved for use at any nuclear power plant by the
Commission.
``(c) Judicial Review.--No court shall hold unlawful or set
aside a decision of the Commission in any proceeding
described in subsection (a) because of a failure by the
Commission to use a particular procedure pursuant to this
section unless--
``(1) an objection to the procedure used was presented to
the Commission in a timely fashion or there are extraordinary
circumstances that excuse the failure to present a timely
objection; and
``(2) the court finds that such failure has precluded a
fair consideration and informed resolution of a significant
issue of the proceeding taken as a whole.
``SEC. 505. SITING A SECOND REPOSITORY.
``(a) Congressional Action Required.--The Secretary may not
conduct site-specific activities with respect to a second
repository unless Congress has specifically authorized and
appropriated funds for such activities.
``(b) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the President
and to Congress on or after January 1, 2007, but not later
than January 1, 2010, on the need for a second repository.
``SEC. 506. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE SITE CLOSURE.
``(a) Financial Arrangements.--
``(1) Standards and instructions.--The Commission shall
establish by rule, regulation, or order, after public notice,
and in accordance with section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2231), such standards and instructions as
the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to ensure in
the case of each license for the disposal of low-level
radioactive waste that an adequate bond, surety, or other
financial arrangement (as determined by the Commission) will
be provided by a licensee to permit completion of all
requirements established by the Commission for the
decontamination, decommissioning, site closure, and
reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in
conjunction with such low-level radioactive waste. Such
financial arrangements shall be provided and approved by the
Commission, or, in the case of sites within the boundaries of
any agreement State under section 274 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021), by the appropriate State or
State entity, prior to issuance of licenses for low-level
radioactive waste disposal or, in the case of licenses in
effect on January 7, 1983, prior to termination of such
licenses.
``(2) Bonding, surety, or other financial arrangements.--If
the Commission determines that any long-term maintenance or
monitoring, or both, will be necessary at a site described in
paragraph (1), the Commission shall ensure before termination
of the license involved that the licensee has made available
such bonding, surety, or other financial arrangements as may
be necessary to ensure that any necessary long-term
maintenance or monitoring needed for such site will be
carried out by the person having title and custody for such
site following license termination.
``(b) Title and Custody.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--The Secretary shall have
authority to assume title and custody of low-level
radioactive waste and the land on which such waste is
disposed of, upon request of the owner of such waste and land
and following termination of the license issued by the
Commission for such disposal, if the Commission determines
that--
``(A) the requirements of the Commission for site closure,
decommissioning, and decontamination have been met by the
licensee involved and that such licensee is in compliance
with the provisions of subsection (a);
``(B) such title and custody will be transferred to the
Secretary without cost to the Federal Government; and
``(C) Federal ownership and management of such site is
necessary or desirable in order to protect the public health
and safety, and the environment.
``(2) Protection.--If the Secretary assumes title and
custody of any such waste and land under this subsection, the
Secretary shall maintain such waste and land in a manner that
will protect the public health and safety, and the
environment.
``(c) Special Sites.--If the low-level radioactive waste
involved is the result of a licensed activity to recover
zirconium, hafnium, and rare earths from source material, the
Secretary, upon request of the owner of the site involved,
shall assume title and custody of such waste and the land on
which it is disposed when such site has been decontaminated
and stabilized in accordance with the requirements
established by the Commission and when such owner has made
adequate financial arrangements approved by the Commission
for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of such site.
``SEC. 507. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TRAINING
AUTHORIZATION.
``The Commission is authorized and directed to promulgate
regulations, or other appropriate regulatory guidance, for
the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear
powerplant operators, supervisors, technicians, and other
appropriate operating personnel. Such regulations or guidance
shall establish simulator training requirements for
applicants for civilian nuclear powerplant operator licenses
and for operator requalification programs; requirements
governing Commission administration of requalification
examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian
nuclear powerplant simulators, and instructional requirements
for civilian nuclear powerplant licensee personnel training
programs.
``SEC. 508. ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE.
``The acceptance schedule shall be implemented in
accordance with the following:
``(1) Priority ranking.--Acceptance priority ranking shall
be determined by the Department's `Acceptance Priority
Ranking' report.
``(2) Acceptance rate.--Except as provided in paragraph
(5), the Secretary's acceptance rate for spent nuclear fuel
shall be no less than the following: 1,200 MTU in 2002 and
1,200 MTU in 2003, 2,000 MTU in 2004 and 2,000 MTU in 2005,
2,700 MTU in 2006, and 3,000 MTU thereafter.
``(3) Other acceptances.--In each year, once the Secretary
has achieved the annual acceptance rate for spent nuclear
fuel from civilian nuclear power reactors established
pursuant to the contracts executed under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (as set forth in the Secretary's annual
capacity report dated March 1995 (DOE/RW-0457)), the
Secretary--
``(A) shall accept from spent nuclear fuel from foreign
research reactors and spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors
and high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy defense
activities,an amount of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste which is--
``(i) at least 25 percent of the difference between such
annual acceptance rate and the annual rate specified in
paragraph (2), or
``(ii) 5 percent of the total amount of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste actually accepted,
whichever is higher. If such amount is less than the rate
prescribed in the preceding sentence, the Secretary shall
accept spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste of
domestic origin from civilian nuclear power reactors which
have permanently ceased operation; and
``(B) may, additionally, accept any other spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(4) Exception.--If the annual rate under the acceptance
schedule is not achieved, the acceptance rate of the
Secretary of the materials described in paragraph (3)(A)
shall be the greater of the acceptance rate prescribed by
paragraph (3) and calculated on the basis of the amount of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste actually
received or 5 percent of the total amount of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste actually accepted.
``(5) Adjustment.--If the Secretary is unable to begin
acceptance by January 31, 2002 at the rate specified in
paragraph (2) or if the cumulative amount accepted in any
year thereafter is less than that which would have been
accepted under the rate specified in paragraph (2), the
acceptance schedule shall, to the extent practicable, be
adjusted upward such that within 5 years of the start of
acceptance by the Secretary--
``(A) the total quantity accepted by the Secretary is
consistent with the total quantity that the Secretary would
have accepted if the Secretary had begun acceptance in 2002;
and
``(B) thereafter the acceptance rate is equivalent to the
rate that would be in place pursuant to paragraph (2) if the
Secretary had commenced acceptance in 2002.
``(6) Effect on schedule.--The acceptance schedule shall
not be affected or modified in any way as a result of the
Secretary's acceptance of any material other than contract
holders' spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
[[Page H9680]]
``SEC. 509. SUBSEABED OR OCEAN WATER DISPOSAL.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(1) the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste is prohibited;
and
``(2) no funds shall be obligated for any activity relating
to the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``TITLE VI--NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
``SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title--
``(1) Chairman.--The term `Chairman' means the Chairman of
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
``(2) Board.--The term `Board' means the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board continued under section 602.
``SEC. 602. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD.
``(a) Continuation of Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board.--The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, established
under section 502(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
as constituted prior to the date of enactment of this Act,
shall continue in effect subsequent to the date of enactment
of this Act.
``(b) Members.--
``(1) Number.--The Board shall consist of 11 members who
shall be appointed by the President not later than 90 days
after December 22, 1987, from among persons nominated by the
National Academy of Sciences in accordance with paragraph
(3).
``(2) Chair.--The President shall designate a member of the
Board to serve as Chairman.
``(3) National academy of sciences.--
``(A) Nominations.--The National Academy of Sciences shall,
not later than 90 days after December 22, 1987, nominate not
less than 22 persons for appointment to the Board from among
persons who meet the qualifications described in subparagraph
(C).
``(B) Vacancies.--The National Academy of Sciences shall
nominate not less than 2 persons to fill any vacancy on the
Board from among persons who meet the qualifications
described in subparagraph (C).
``(C) Nominees.--
``(i) Each person nominated for appointment to the Board
shall be--
``(I) eminent in a field of science or engineering,
including environmental sciences; and
``(II) selected solely on the basis of established records
of distinguished service.
``(ii) The membership of the Board shall be representatives
of the broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines
related to activities under this title.
``(iii) No person shall be nominated for appointment to the
Board who is an employee of--
``(I) the Department of Energy;
``(II) a national laboratory under contract with the
Department of Energy; or
``(III) an entity performing spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste activities under contract with the
Department of Energy.
``(4) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled
by the nomination and appointment process described in
paragraphs (1) and (3).
``(5) Terms.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for
terms of 4 years, each such term to commence 120 days after
December 22, 1987, except that of the 11 members first
appointed to the Board, 5 shall serve for 2 years and 6 shall
serve for 4 years, to be designated by the President at the
time of appointment, except that a member of the Board whose
term has expired may continue to serve as a member of the
Board until such member's successor has taken office.
``SEC. 603. FUNCTIONS.
``The Board shall evaluate the technical and scientific
validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary after
December 22, 1987, including--
``(1) site characterization activities; and
``(2) activities relating to the packaging or
transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste.
``SEC. 604. INVESTIGATORY POWERS.
``(a) Hearings.--Upon request of the Chairman or a majority
of the members of the Board, the Board may hold such
hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such
testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Board considers
appropriate. Any member of the Board may administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses appearing before the Board.
``(b) Production of Documents.--
``(1) Response to inquiries.--Upon the request of the
Chairman or a majority of the members of the Board, and
subject to existing law, the Secretary (or any contractor of
the Secretary) shall provide the Board with such records,
files, papers, data, or information as may be necessary to
respond to any inquiry of the Board under this title.
``(2) Extent.--Subject to existing law, information
obtainable under paragraph (1) shall not be limited to final
work products of the Secretary, but shall include drafts of
such products and documentation of work in progress.
``SEC. 605. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.
``(a) In General.--Each member of the Board shall, subject
to appropriations, be paid at the rate of pay payable for
level III of the Executive Schedule for each day (including
travel time) such member is engaged in the work of the Board.
``(b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Board may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in the same manner as is permitted under
sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 606. STAFF.
``(a) Clerical Staff.--
``(1) Authority of chairman.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Chairman may, subject to appropriations, appoint and fix the
compensation of such clerical staff as may be necessary to
discharge the responsibilities of the Board.
``(2) Provisions of title 5.--Clerical staff shall be
appointed subject to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 3 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates.
``(b) Professional Staff.--
``(1) Authority of chairman.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Chairman may, subject to appropriations, appoint and
fix the compensation of such professional staff as may be
necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the Board.
``(2) Number.--Not more than 10 professional staff members
may be appointed under this subsection.
``(3) Title 5.--Professional staff members may be appointed
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
individual so appointed may receive pay in excess of the
annual rate of basic pay payable for GS-18 of the General
Schedule.
``SEC. 607. SUPPORT SERVICES.
``(a) General Services.--To the extent permitted by law and
requested by the Chairman, the Administrator of General
Services shall provide the Board with necessary
administrative services, facilities, and support on a
reimbursable basis.
``(b) Accounting, Research, and Technology Assessment
Services.--The Comptroller General, the Librarian of
Congress, and the Director of the Office of Technology
Assessment shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject
to the availability of funds, provide the Board with such
facilities, support, funds and services, including staff, as
may be necessary for the effective performance of the
functions of the Board.
``(c) Additional Support.--Upon the request of the
Chairman, the Board may secure directly from the head of any
department or agency of the United States information
necessary to enable it to carry out this title.
``(d) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in
the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
``(e) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to such rules as
may be prescribed by the Board, the Chairman may, subject to
appropriations, procure temporary and intermittent services
under section 3109(b) of title 5 of the United States Code,
but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily
equivalent of the maximum annual rate of basic pay payable
for GS-18 of the General Schedule.
``SEC. 608. REPORT.
``The Board shall report not less than 2 times per year to
Congress and the Secretary its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
``SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated for expenditures
such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this title.
``SEC. 610. TERMINATION OF THE BOARD.
``The Board shall cease to exist not later than one year
after the date on which the Secretary begins disposal of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste in the
repository.
``TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT REFORM
``SEC. 701. MANAGEMENT REFORM INITIATIVES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to take
actions as necessary to improve the management of the
civilian radioactive waste management program to ensure that
the program is operated, to the maximum extent practicable,
in like manner as a private business.
``(b) Site Characterization.--The Secretary shall employ,
on an on-going basis, integrated performance modeling to
identify appropriate parameters for the remaining site
characterization effort and to eliminate studies of
parameters that are shown not to affect long-term repository
performance.
``SEC. 702. REPORTING.
``(a) Initial Report.--Within 180 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress
on its planned actions for implementing the provisions of
this Act, including the development of the Integrated Waste
Management System. Such report shall include--
``(1) an analysis of the Secretary's progress in meeting
its statutory and contractual obligation to accept title to,
possession of, and delivery of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste beginning no later than January 31,
2002, and in accordance with the acceptance schedule;
``(2) a detailed schedule and timeline showing each action
that the Secretary intends to take to meet the Secretary's
obligations under this Act and the contracts;
[[Page H9681]]
``(3) a detailed description of the Secretary's contingency
plans in the event that the Secretary is unable to meet the
planned schedule and timeline; and
``(4) an analysis by the Secretary of its funding needs for
fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
``(b) Annual Reports.--On each anniversary of the submittal
of the report required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall
make annual reports to the Congress for the purpose of
updating the information contained in such report. The annual
reports shall be brief and shall notify the Congress of--
``(1) any modifications to the Secretary's schedule and
timeline for meeting its obligations under this Act;
``(2) the reasons for such modifications, and the status of
the implementation of any of the Secretary's contingency
plans; and
``(3) the Secretary's analysis of its funding needs for the
ensuing 5 fiscal years.''.
SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF CONTRACTS.
Subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act, the
contracts executed under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 shall continue in effect under this Act in
accordance with their terms except to the extent that the
contracts have been modified by the parties to the contract.
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is amended to read as
follows:
``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1997'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--
``Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Definitions.
``Sec. 3. Findings and purposes.
``TITLE I--OBLIGATIONS
``Sec. 101. Obligations of the Secretary of Energy.
``TITLE II--INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
``Sec. 201. Intermodal transfer.
``Sec. 202. Transportation planning.
``Sec. 203. Transportation requirements.
``Sec. 204. Interim storage.
``Sec. 205. Permanent disposal.
``Sec. 206. Land withdrawal.
``TITLE III--LOCAL RELATIONS
``Sec. 301. On-site representative.
``Sec. 302. Benefits agreements.
``Sec. 303. Content of agreements.
``Sec. 304. Acceptance of benefits.
``Sec. 305. Restriction on use of funds.
``Sec. 306. Initial land conveyances.
``TITLE IV--FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION
``Sec. 401. Program funding.
``Sec. 402. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
``Sec. 403. Defense contribution.
``TITLE V--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``Sec. 501. Compliance with other laws.
``Sec. 502. Water rights.
``Sec. 503. Judicial review of agency actions.
``Sec. 504. Licensing of facility expansions and transshipments.
``Sec. 505. Siting a second repository.
``Sec. 506. Financial arrangements for low-level radioactive waste site
closure.
``Sec. 507. Nuclear Regulatory Commission training authorization.
``Sec. 508. Acceptance schedule.
``Sec. 509. Subseabed or ocean water disposal.
``Sec. 510. Compensation.
``TITLE VI--NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
``Sec. 601. Definitions.
``Sec. 602. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
``Sec. 603. Functions.
``Sec. 604. Investigatory powers.
``Sec. 605. Compensation of members.
``Sec. 606. Staff.
``Sec. 607. Support services.
``Sec. 608. Report.
``Sec. 609. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 610. Termination of the board.
``TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT REFORM
``Sec. 701. Management reform initiatives.
``Sec. 702. Reporting.
``SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this Act:
``(1) Accept, acceptance.--The terms `accept' and
`acceptance' mean the Secretary's act of taking possession of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(2) Acceptance schedule.--The term `acceptance schedule'
means the schedule established by the Secretary under section
508 for acceptance of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
``(3) Affected indian tribe.--The term `affected Indian
tribe' means an Indian tribe--
``(A) whose reservation is surrounded by or borders on an
affected unit of local government, or
``(B) whose federally-defined possessory or usage rights to
other lands outside of the border of the Indian tribe's
reservation arising out of Congressionally-ratified treaties,
may be affected by the locating of an interim storage
facility or repository, if the Secretary finds, upon petition
of the appropriate government officials of the Indian tribe,
that such affects are both substantial and adverse to the
Indian tribe.
``(4) Affected unit of local government.--The term
`affected unit of local government' means the unit of local
government with jurisdiction over the site of a repository or
interim storage facility. Such term may, at the discretion of
the Secretary, include other units of local government that
are contiguous with such unit.
``(5) Atomic energy defense activity.--The term `atomic
energy defense activity' means any activity of the Secretary
performed in whole or in part in carrying out any of the
following functions:
``(A) Naval reactors development.
``(B) Weapons activities including defense inertial
confinement fusion.
``(C) Verification and control technology.
``(D) Defense nuclear materials production.
``(E) Defense nuclear waste and materials byproducts
management.
``(F) Defense nuclear materials security and safeguards and
security investigations.
``(G) Defense research and development.
``(6) Civilian nuclear power reactor.--The term `civilian
nuclear power reactor' means a civilian nuclear power plant
required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134(b)).
``(7) Commission.--The term `Commission' means the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
``(8) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Energy.
``(9) Disposal.--The term `disposal' means the emplacement
in a repository of spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, or other highly radioactive material with no
foreseeable intent of recovery, whether or not such
emplacement permits recovery of such material for any future
purpose.
``(10) Disposal system.--The term `disposal system' means
all natural barriers and engineered barriers, and engineered
systems and components, that prevent the release of
radionuclides from the repository.
``(11) Engineered barriers.--The term `engineered barriers'
and `engineered systems and components,' means man made
components of a disposal system. Such term includes the spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste form, spent
nuclear fuel package or high-level radioactive waste, and
other materials placed over and around such packages.
``(12) High-level radioactive waste.--The term `high-level
radioactive waste' means--
``(A) the highly radioactive material resulting from the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste
produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material
derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products
in sufficient concentrations;
``(B) the highly radioactive material resulting from atomic
energy defense activities; and
``(C) other highly radioactive material that the
Commission, consistent with existing law, determines by rule
requires permanent isolation.
``(13) Federal agency.--The term `Federal agency' means any
Executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code.
``(14) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community of Indians recognized as eligible for the services
provided to Indians by the Secretary of the Interior because
of their status as Indians including any Alaska Native
village, as defined in section 3(c) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(c)).
``(15) Integrated management system.--The term `integrated
management system' means the system developed by the
Secretary for the acceptance, transportation, storage, and
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste.
``(16) Interim storage facility.--The term `interim storage
facility' means a facility designed and constructed for the
receipt, handling, possession, safeguarding, and storage of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in
accordance with title II of this Act.
``(17) Interim storage facility site.--The term `interim
storage facility site' means the specific site within Area 25
of the Nevada Test Site that is designated by the Secretary
and withdrawn and reserved in accordance with this Act for
the location of the interim storage facility.
``(18) Low-level radioactive waste.--The term `low-level
radioactive waste' means radioactive material that--
``(A) is not spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive
waste, transuranic waste, or byproduct material as defined in
section 11 e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2014(e)(2)); and
``(B) the Commission, consistent with existing law,
classifies as low-level radioactive waste.
``(19) Metric tons uranium.--The terms `metric tons
uranium' and `MTU' means the amount of uranium in the
original unirradiated fuel element whether or not the spent
nuclear fuel has been reprocessed.
``(20) Nuclear waste fund.--The terms `Nuclear Waste Fund'
and `waste fund' mean the nuclear waste fund established in
the United States Treasury prior to the date of enactment of
this Act under section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982.
``(21) Office.--The term `Office' means the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management established within the
Department prior to the date of enactment of this Act under
the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
``(22) Program approach.--The term `program approach' means
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program Plan, dated
May 1996, as modified by this Act, and
[[Page H9682]]
as amended from time to time by the Secretary in accordance
with this Act.
``(23) Repository.--The term `repository' means a system
designed and constructed under title II of this Act for the
permanent geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste, including both surface and
subsurface areas at which spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste receipt, handling, possession,
safeguarding, and storage are conducted.
``(24) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Energy.
``(25) Site characterization.--The term `site
characterization' means activities, whether in a laboratory
or in the field, undertaken to establish the geologic
condition and the ranges of the parameters of a candidate
site relevant to the location of a repository, including
borings, surface excavations, excavations of exploratory
facilities, limited subsurface lateral excavations and
borings, and in situ testing needed to evaluate the
licensability of a candidate site for the location of a
repository, but not including preliminary borings and
geophysical testing needed to assess whether site
characterization should be undertaken.
``(26) Spent nuclear fuel.--The term `spent nuclear fuel'
means fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor
following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have
not been separated by reprocessing.
``(27) Storage.--The term `storage' means retention of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste with the
intent to recover such waste or fuel for subsequent use,
processing, or disposal.
``(28) Withdrawal.--The term `withdrawal' has the same
definition as that set forth in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1702 and following).
``(29) Yucca mountain site.--The term `Yucca Mountain site'
means the area in the State of Nevada that is withdrawn and
reserved in accordance with this Act for the location of a
repository.
``SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(1) while spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored at
reactor sites, the expeditious movement to and storage of
such spent nuclear fuel at a centralized Federal facility
will enhance the nation's environmental protection;
``(2) while the Federal Government has the responsibility
to provide for the centralized interim storage and permanent
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste to protect the public health and safety and the
environment, the costs of such storage and disposal should be
the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste
and fuel, including the Federal Government;
``(3) in the interests of protecting the public health and
safety, enhancing the nation's environmental protection,
promoting the nation's energy security, and ensuring the
Secretary's ability to commence acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste no later than January
31, 2000, it is necessary for Congress to authorize the
interim storage facility;
``(4) deficit-control measures designed to limit
appropriation of general revenues have limited the
availability of the Nuclear Waste Fund for its intended
purposes; and
``(5) the Federal Government has the responsibility to
provide for the permanent disposal of waste generated from
United States atomic energy defense activities.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to direct the Secretary to develop an integrated
management system in accordance with this Act so that the
Department can accept spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste for interim storage commencing no later
than January 31, 2000, and for permanent disposal at a
repository commencing no later than January 17, 2010;
``(2) to provide for the siting, construction, and
operation of a repository for permanent geologic disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in order
to adequately protect the public and the environment;
``(3) to take those actions necessary to ensure that the
consumers of nuclear energy, who are funding the Secretary's
activities under this Act, receive the services to which they
are entitled and realize the benefits of enhanced protection
of public health and safety, and the environment, that will
ensue from the Secretary's compliance with the obligations
imposed by this Act; and
``(4) to provide a schedule and process for the expeditious
and safe development and commencement of operation of an
integrated management system and any necessary modifications
to the transportation infrastructure to ensure that the
Secretary can commence acceptance of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste no later than January 31, 2000.
``TITLE I--OBLIGATIONS
``SEC. 101. OBLIGATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY.
``(a) Disposal.--The Secretary shall develop and operate a
repository for the permanent geologic disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(b) Acceptance.--The Secretary shall accept spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste for storage at the
interim storage facility pursuant to section 204 in
accordance with the acceptance schedule established under
section 508, beginning not later than January 31, 2000.
``(c) Transportation.--The Secretary shall provide for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste accepted by the Secretary.
``(d) Integrated Management System.--The Secretary shall
expeditiously pursue the development of each component of the
integrated management system, and in so doing shall seek to
utilize effective private sector management and contracting
practices in accordance with title VII of this Act.
``TITLE II--INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
``SEC. 201. INTERMODAL TRANSFER.
``(a) Before Rail Access.--Until such time as direct rail
access is available to the interim storage facility site, the
Secretary shall utilize heavy-haul truck transport to move
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from
the mainline rail line at Caliente, Nevada, to the interim
storage facility site.
``(b) Capability Date.--The Secretary shall develop the
capability to commence rail to truck intermodal transfer at
Caliente, Nevada, no later than January 31, 2000.
``(c) Acquisitions.--The Secretary shall acquire lands and
rights-of-way necessary to commence intermodal transfer at
Caliente, Nevada.
``(d) Replacements.--The Secretary shall acquire and
develop on behalf of, and dedicate to, the City of Caliente,
Nevada, parcels of land and rights-of-way as required to
facilitate replacement of land and city wastewater disposal
activities necessary to commence intermodal transfer pursuant
to this Act. Replacement of land and city wastewater disposal
activities shall occur no later than January 31, 2000.
``(e) Notice and Map.--Within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
``(1) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the sites and rights-of-way to be
acquired under this section; and
``(2) file copies of a map of such sites and rights-of-way
with the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the State
of Nevada, the Archivist of the United States, the Board of
Lincoln County Commissioners, the Board of Nye County
Commissioners, and the Caliente City Council.
Such map and legal description shall have the same force and
effect as if they were included in this Act. The Secretary
may correct clerical and typographical errors and legal
descriptions and make minor adjustments in the boundaries.
``(f) Improvements.--The Secretary shall make improvements
to existing roadways selected for heavy-haul truck transport
between Caliente, Nevada, and the interim storage facility
site as necessary to facilitate year-round safe transport of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``(g) Heavy-Haul Transportation Route.--
``(1) Designation of route.--The route for the heavy-haul
truck transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste shall be as designated in the map (entitled
`Heavy-Haul Route' and on file with the Secretary).
``(2) Truck transportation.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the State of Nevada and appropriate counties and local
jurisdictions, shall establish reasonable terms and
conditions pursuant to which the Secretary may utilize heavy-
haul truck transport to move spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste from Caliente, Nevada, to the interim
storage facility site.
``(3) Improvements and maintenance.--Notwithstanding any
other law--
``(A) the Secretary shall be responsible for any
incremental costs related to improving or upgrading Federal,
State, and local roads within the heavy-haul transportation
route utilized, and performing any maintenance activities on
such roads, as necessary, to facilitate year-round safe
transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste; and
``(B) any such improvement, upgrading, or maintenance
activity shall be funded solely by appropriations made
pursuant to sections 401 and 403 of this Act.
``(h) Local Government Involvement.--The Commission shall
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of
Caliente and Lincoln County, Nevada, to provide advice to the
Commission regarding intermodal transfer and to facilitate
on-site representation.
``(i) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--The
Secretary's activities in connection with the development of
intermodal transfer capability, and upgrading and
improvements to, and maintenance of, the roads within the
heavy-haul transportation route shall be considered
preliminary decisionmaking activities. Such activities
shall not require the preparation of an environmental
impact statement under section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) or
any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of
section 102(2) of such Act.
``(j) Regulation.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary's movement of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste by heavy-haul transport route pursuant to
this subsection shall be subject to exclusive regulation by
the Secretary of Transportation and the Commission in
accordance with regulatory authority under the provisions of
this Act, chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code
(relating to the transportation of hazardous materials), and
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
[[Page H9683]]
``SEC. 202. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
``(a) Transportation Readiness.--The Secretary shall take
those actions that are necessary and appropriate to ensure
that the Secretary is able to accept spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste beginning not later than January
31, 2000, and transport such fuel or waste to mainline
transportation facilities. As soon as is practicable
following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
analyze each specific reactor facility in the order of
priority established in the acceptance schedule under section
508, and develop a logistical plan to assure the Secretary's
ability to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste.
``(b) Transportation Planning.--In conjunction with the
development of the logistical plan in accordance with
subsection (a), the Secretary shall update and modify, as
necessary, the Secretary's transportation institutional plans
to ensure that institutional issues are addressed and
resolved on a schedule to support the commencement of
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste to the interim storage facility no later
than January 31, 2000. Among other things, such planning
shall provide a schedule and process for addressing and
implementing, as necessary, transportation routing plans,
transportation contracting plans, transportation training in
accordance with section 203, and transportation tracking
programs.
``SEC. 203. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Package Certification.--No spent nuclear fuel or
high-level radioactive waste may be transported by or for the
Secretary under this Act except in packages that have been
certified for such purposes by the Commission.
``(b) State Notification.--The Secretary shall abide by
regulations of the Commission regarding advance notification
of State and local governments prior to transportation of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste under this
Act.
``(c) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance and funds to States, affected units of local
government, and Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the
Secretary plans to transport substantial amounts of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste for training for
public safety officials of appropriate units of local
government. Training shall cover procedures required for safe
routine transportation of these materials, as well as
procedures for dealing with emergency response situations.
The Secretary's duty to provide technical and financial
assistance under this subsection shall be limited to amounts
specified in annual appropriations.
``(2) Minimizing duplication of effort and expenses.--The
Secretaries of Transportation, Labor, and Energy, Directors
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall review periodically,
with the head of each department, agency, or instrumentality
of the Government, all emergency response and preparedness
training programs of that department, agency, or
instrumentality to minimize duplication of effort and expense
of the department, agency, or instrumentality in carrying out
the programs and shall take necessary action to minimize
duplication.
``(d) Use of Private Carriers.--The Secretary, in providing
for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste under this Act, shall by contract use
private industry to the fullest extent possible in each
aspect of such transportation. The Secretary shall use direct
Federal services for such transportation only upon a
determination by the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretary, that private industry is
unable or unwilling to provide such transportation services
at a reasonable cost.
``(e) Transfer of Title.--Acceptance by the Secretary of
any spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste shall
constitute a transfer of title to the Secretary.
``SEC. 204. INTERIM STORAGE.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary shall design,
construct, and operate a facility for the interim storage of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the
interim storage facility site. The interim storage
facility shall be subject to licensing pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) in
accordance with the Commission's regulations governing the
licensing of independent spent fuel storage installations
and shall commence operation in phases by January 31,
2000.
``(b) Design.--The design of the interim storage facility
shall provide for the use of storage technologies licensed or
certified by the Commission for use at the interim storage
facility as necessary to ensure compatibility between the
interim storage facility and contract holders' spent nuclear
fuel and facilities, and to facilitate the Secretary's
ability to meet the Secretary's obligations under this Act.
``(c) Licensing.--
``(1) Phases.--The interim storage facility shall be
licensed by the Commission in two phases in order to commence
operations no later than January 31, 2000.
``(2) First phase.--No later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Commission an application for a license for the first phase
of the interim storage facility. The license issued for the
first phase of the interim storage facility shall have a term
of 20 years. The interim storage facility licensed in the
first phase shall have a capacity of not more than 10,000
MTU. The Commission shall issue a final decision granting or
denying the application for the first phase license no later
than 16 months from the date of the submittal of the
application for such license.
``(3) Second phase.--Upon the issuance of the license for
the first phase of the interim storage facility under
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit to the Commission
an application for a license for the second phase interim
storage facility. The license for the second phase facility
shall authorize a storage capacity of 40,000 MTU. The license
for the second phase shall have an initial term of up to 100
years, and shall be renewable for additional terms upon
application of the Secretary.
``(d) Additional Authority.--
``(1) Construction.--For the purpose of complying with
subsection (a), the Secretary may commence site preparation
for the interim storage facility as soon as practicable after
the date of enactment of this Act and shall commence
construction of the first phase of the interim storage
facility subsequent to submittal of the license application
except that the Commission shall issue an order suspending
such construction at any time if the Commission determines
that such construction poses an unreasonable risk to public
health and safety or the environment. The Commission shall
terminate all or part of such order upon a determination that
the Secretary has taken appropriate action to eliminate such
risk.
``(2) Facility use.--Notwithstanding any otherwise
applicable licensing requirement, the Secretary may utilize
any facility owned by the Federal Government on the date of
enactment of this Act and within the boundaries of the
interim storage facility site, in connection with an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health and safety at
the interim storage facility prior to commencement of
operations during the second phase.
``(3) Acceptance of fuel and waste.--
``(A) General rule.--In each year, once the Secretary has
achieved the annual acceptance rate for spent nuclear fuel
from civilian nuclear power reactors established pursuant to
the contracts executed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 (as set forth in the Secretary's annual capacity report
dated March 1995 (DOE/RW-0457)), the Secretary--
``(i) may, additionally, accept spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste of domestic origin from civilian
nuclear power reactors which have permanently ceased
operation; and
``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), shall accept
at least 25 percent of the difference between such annual
acceptance rate and the annual rate under the acceptance
schedule established under section 508 for spent nuclear fuel
from civilian power reactors of--
``(I) spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors;
and
``(II) spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors and high-
level radioactive waste from atomic energy defense
activities.
``(B) Exception.--If the annual rate under the acceptance
schedule established under section 508 is not achieved, the
acceptance rate of the Secretary of the materials described
in subclauses (I) and (II) of subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be
the greater of the acceptance rate prescribed by subparagraph
(A) and calculated on the basis of the amount of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste actually
received or 5 percent of the total amount of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste actually accepted.
``(e) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--
``(1) Preliminary decisionmaking activities.--The
Secretary's activities under this section, including the
selection of a site for the interim storage facility, the
preparation and submittal of any license application, and the
construction and operation of any facility shall be
considered preliminary decisionmaking activities for purposes
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). No such activity shall require the preparation
of an environmental impact statement under section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)) or require any environmental review under
subparagraph (E) or (F) of such Act.
``(2) Environmental impact statement.--
``(A) Final decision.--A final decision of the Commission
to grant or deny a license application for the first or
second phase of the interim storage facility shall be
accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement prepared
under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). In preparing such
Environmental Impact Statement, the Commission--
``(i) shall assume that 40,000 MTU will be stored at the
facility;
``(ii) shall analyze the impacts of the transportation of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the
interim storage facility in a generic manner; and
``(iii) shall consider the results of the study by the
National Academy of Sciences on the migration of plutonium at
the Nevada test site.
``(B) Considerations.--Such Environmental Impact Statement
shall not consider--
[[Page H9684]]
``(i) the need for the interim storage facility, including
any individual component thereof;
``(ii) the time of the initial availability of the interim
storage facility;
``(iii) any alternatives to the storage of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the interim storage
facility;
``(iv) any alternatives to the site of the facility as
designated by the Secretary in accordance with subsection
(a);
``(v) any alternatives to the design criteria for such
facility or any individual component thereof, as specified by
the Secretary in the license application; or
``(vi) the environmental impacts of the storage of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the interim
storage facility beyond the initial term of the license or
the term of the renewal period for which a license renewal
application is made.
``(f) Judicial Review.--Judicial review of the Commission's
environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
shall be consolidated with judicial review of the
Commission's licensing decision. No court shall have
jurisdiction to enjoin the construction or operation of the
interim storage facility prior to its final decision on
review of the Commission's licensing action.
``(g) Waste Confidence.--The Secretary's obligation to
construct and operate the interim storage facility in
accordance with this section and the Secretary's obligation
to develop an integrated management system in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, shall provide sufficient and
independent grounds for any further findings by the
Commission of reasonable assurance that spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste will be disposed of
safely and on a timely basis for purposes of the
Commission's decision to grant or amend any license to
operate any civilian nuclear power reactor under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act shall affect the
Commission's procedures for the licensing of any technology
for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at the site of any
civilian nuclear power reactor as adopted by the Commission
under section 218 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
in effect prior to the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1997. The establishment of such procedures shall not
preclude the licensing, under any applicable procedures or
rules of the Commission in effect prior to such
establishment, of any technology for the storage of civilian
spent nuclear fuel at the site of any civilian nuclear power
reactor.
``SEC. 205. PERMANENT DISPOSAL.
``(a) Site Characterization.--
``(1) Guidelines.--The guidelines promulgated by the
Secretary and published at 10 CFR part 960 are annulled and
revoked and the Secretary shall make no assumptions or
conclusions about the licensability of the Yucca Mountain
site as a repository by reference to such guidelines.
``(2) Site characterization activities.--The Secretary
shall carry out appropriate site characterization activities
at the Yucca Mountain site in accordance with the Secretary's
program approach to site characterization if the Secretary
modifies or eliminates those site characterization activities
designed to demonstrate the suitability of the site under the
guidelines referenced in paragraph (1).
``(3) Date.--No later than December 31, 2002, the Secretary
shall apply to the Commission for authorization to construct
a repository that will commence operations no later than
January 17, 2010. If, at any time prior to the filing of such
application, the Secretary determines that the Yucca Mountain
site cannot satisfy the Commission's regulations applicable
to the licensing of a geologic repository, the Secretary
shall terminate site characterization activities at the site,
notify Congress and the State of Nevada of the Secretary's
determination and the reasons therefor, and recommend to
Congress not later than 6 months after such determination
further actions, including the enactment of legislation, that
may be needed to manage the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste.
``(4) Maximizing capacity.--In developing an application
for authorization to construct the repository, the Secretary
shall seek to maximize the capacity of the repository.
``(b) Licensing.--Within one year of the date of enactment
of this Act, the Commission shall amend its regulations
governing the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste in geologic repositories to the extent
necessary to comply with this Act. Subject to subsection (c),
such regulations shall provide for the licensing of the
repository according to the following procedures:
``(1) Construction authorization.--The Commission shall
grant the Secretary a construction authorization for the
repository upon determining that there is reasonable
assurance that spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste can be disposed of in the repository--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application, the
provisions of this Act, and the regulations of the
Commission;
``(B) without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
``(2) License.--Following substantial completion of
construction and the filing of any additional information
needed to complete the license application, the Commission
shall issue a license to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste in the repository if the
Commission determines that the repository has been
constructed and will operate--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application, the
provisions of this Act, and the regulations of the
Commission;
``(B) without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
``(3) Closure.--After emplacing spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste in the repository and collecting
sufficient confirmatory data on repository performance to
reasonably confirm the basis for repository closure
consistent with the Commission's regulations applicable to
the licensing of a repository, as modified in accordance with
this Act, the Secretary shall apply to the Commission to
amend the license to permit permanent closure of the
repository. The Commission shall grant such license amendment
upon finding that there is reasonable assurance that the
repository can be permanently closed--
``(A) in conformity with the Secretary's application to
amend the license, the provisions of this Act, and the
regulations of the Commission;
``(B) without unreasonable risk to the health and safety of
the public; and
``(C) consistent with the common defense and security.
``(4) Post-closure.--The Secretary shall take those actions
necessary and appropriate at the Yucca Mountain site to
prevent any activity at the site subsequent to repository
closure that poses an unreasonable risk of--
``(A) breaching the repository's engineered or geologic
barriers: or
``(B) increasing the exposure of individual members of the
public to radiation beyond the release standard established
in subsection (d)(1).
``(c) Modification of Repository Licensing Procedure.--The
Commission's regulations shall provide for the modification
of the repository licensing procedure, as appropriate, in the
event that the Secretary seeks a license to permit the
emplacement in the repository, on a retrievable basis, of
only that quantity of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste that is necessary to provide the Secretary
with sufficient confirmatory data on repository performance
to reasonably confirm the basis for repository closure
consistent with applicable regulations.
``(d) Licensing Standards.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall not promulgate, by rule or otherwise,
standards for protection of the public from releases of
radioactive materials or radioactivity from the repository
and any such standards existing on the date of enactment of
this Act shall not be incorporated in the Commission's
licensing regulations. The Commission's repository licensing
determinations for the protection of the public shall be
based solely on a finding whether the repository can be
operated in conformance with the overall system performance
standard established in paragraph (1)(A) and applied in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)(B). The
Commission shall amend its regulations in accordance with
subsection (b) to incorporate each of the following licensing
standards:
``(1) Release standard.--
``(A) Establishment of overall system performance
standard.--The standard for protection of the public from
release of radioactive material or radioactivity from the
repository shall prohibit releases that would expose an
average member of the general population in the vicinity of
the Yucca Mountain site to an annual dose in excess of 100
millirems unless the Commission determines by rule that
such standard would constitute an unreasonable risk to
health and safety and establishes by rule another standard
which will protect health and safety. Such standard shall
constitute an overall system performance standard.
``(B) Application of overall system performance standard.--
The Commission shall issue the license if it finds reasonable
assurance that--
``(i) for the first 1,000 years following the commencement
of repository operations, the overall system performance
standard will be met based on a deterministic or
probabilistic evaluation of the overall performance of the
disposal system; and
``(ii) for the period commencing after the first 1,000
years of operation of the repository and terminating at
10,000 years after the commencement of operation of the
repository, there is likely to be compliance with the overall
system performance standard based on regulatory insight
gained through the use of a probabilistic integrated
performance model that uses best estimate assumptions, data,
and methods.
``(2) Human intrusion.--The Commission shall assume that,
following repository closure, the inclusion of engineered
barriers and the Secretary's post-closure actions at the
Yucca Mountain site, in accordance with subsection (b)(3),
shall be sufficient to--
``(A) prevent any human activity at the site that poses an
unreasonable risk of breaching the repository's engineered or
geologic barriers; and
[[Page H9685]]
``(B) prevent any increase in the exposure of individual
members of the public to radiation beyond allowable limits as
specified in paragraph (1).
``(e) National Environmental Policy Act.--
``(1) Submission of statement.--Construction and operation
of the repository shall be considered a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary shall submit an
environmental impact statement on the construction and
operation of the repository to the Commission with the
application for construction authorization.
``(2) Considerations.--For purposes of complying with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and this section, the Secretary shall not consider in the
environmental impact statement the need for the repository,
alternative sites or designs for the repository, the time of
the initial availability of the repository, or any
alternatives to the isolation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste in a repository.
``(3) Adoption by commission.--The Secretary's
environmental impact statement and any supplements thereto
shall, to the extent practicable, be adopted by the
Commission in connection with the issuance by the Commission
of a construction authorization under subsection (b)(1), a
license under subsection (b)(2), or a license amendment under
subsection (b)(3). To the extent such statement or supplement
is adopted by the Commission, such adoption shall be deemed
to also satisfy the responsibilities of the Commission under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and no further
consideration shall be required, except that nothing in this
subsection shall affect any independent responsibilities of
the Commission to protect the public health and safety under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.). In
any such statement prepared with respect to the repository,
the Commission shall not consider the need for a repository,
the time of initial availability of the repository,
alternate sites to the Yucca Mountain site, or nongeologic
alternatives to such site.
``(f) Judicial Review.--No court shall have jurisdiction to
enjoin issuance of the Commission repository licensing
regulations prior to its final decision on review of such
regulations.
``SEC. 206. LAND WITHDRAWAL.
``(a) Withdrawal and Reservation.--
``(1) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site, as
described in subsection (b), are withdrawn from all forms of
entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public land
laws, including the mineral leasing laws, the geothermal
leasing laws, the material sale laws, and the mining laws.
Withdrawal under this paragraph shall expire at the beginning
of the year 2012 if the interim storage facility site is not
used in accordance with section 204(c)(2) and other
provisions of this Act. After the expiration of the
withdrawal, the sites will return to the Federal agency which
had jurisdiction over them before the withdrawal and for the
purposes previously used.
``(2) Jurisdiction.--Jurisdiction of any land within the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site
managed by the Secretary of the Interior or any other Federal
officer is transferred to the Secretary.
``(3) Reservation.--The interim storage facility site and
the Yucca Mountain site are reserved for the use of the
Secretary for the construction and operation, respectively,
of the interim storage facility and the repository and
activities associated with the purposes of this title.
``(b) Land Description.--
``(1) Boundaries.--The boundaries depicted on the map
entitled `Interim Storage Facility Site Withdrawal Map,'
dated July 28, 1995, and on file with the Secretary, are
established as the boundaries of the Interim Storage Facility
site.
``(2) Boundaries.--The boundaries depicted on the map
entitled `Yucca Mountain Site Withdrawal Map,' dated July 28,
1995, and on file with the Secretary, are established as the
boundaries of the Yucca Mountain site.
``(3) Notice and maps.--Within 6 months of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall--
``(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the interim storage facility site; and
``(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (1),
and the legal description of the interim storage facility
site with the Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Governor of Nevada, and the Archivist of the United States.
``(4) Notice and maps.--Concurrent with the Secretary's
application to the Commission for authority to construct the
repository, the Secretary shall--
``(A) publish in the Federal Register a notice containing a
legal description of the Yucca Mountain site; and
``(B) file copies of the maps described in paragraph (2),
and the legal description of the Yucca Mountain site with the
Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the Governor of
Nevada, and the Archivist of the United States.
``(5) Construction.--The maps and legal descriptions of the
interim storage facility site and the Yucca Mountain site
referred to in this subsection shall have the same force and
effect as if they were included in this Act. The Secretary
may correct clerical and typographical errors in the maps and
legal descriptions and make minor adjustments in the
boundaries of the sites.
``TITLE III--LOCAL RELATIONS
``SEC. 301. ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE.
The Secretary shall offer to Nye County, Nevada, an
opportunity to designate a representative to conduct on-site
oversight activities at such site. Reasonable expenses of
such representatives shall be paid by the Secretary.
``SEC. 302. BENEFITS AGREEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Separate agreements.--The Secretary shall offer to
enter into separate agreements with Nye County, Nevada, and
Lincoln County, Nevada, concerning the integrated management
system.
``(2) Agreement content.--Any agreement shall contain such
terms and conditions, including such financial and
institutional arrangements, as the Secretary and agreement
entity determine to be reasonable and appropriate and shall
contain such provisions as are necessary to preserve any
right to participation or compensation of Nye County, Nevada,
and Lincoln County, Nevada.
``(b) Amendment.--An agreement entered into under
subsection (a) may be amended only with the mutual consent of
the parties to the amendment and terminated only in
accordance with subsection (c).
``(c) Termination.--The Secretary shall terminate an
agreement under subsection (a) if any element of the
integrated management system may not be completed.
``(d) Limitation.--Only 1 agreement each for Nye County,
Nevada, and Lincoln County, Nevada, may be in effect at any
one time.
``(e) Judicial Review.--Decisions of the Secretary under
this section are not subject to judicial review.
``SEC. 303. CONTENT OF AGREEMENTS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Schedule.--The Secretary shall make payments to the
party of a benefits agreement under section 302(a) in
accordance with the following schedule:
``BENEFITS SCHEDULE
[Amounts in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Annual payments prior to first receipt of fuel........... $2.5
(B) Upon first spent fuel receipt............................ $5
(C) Annual payments after first spent fuel receipt until $5
closure of facility.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
term--
``(A) `spent fuel' means high-level radioactive waste or
spent nuclear fuel; and
``(B) `first spent fuel receipt' does not include receipt
of spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste for purposes of
testing or operational demonstration.
``(3) Annual payments.--Annual payments prior to first
spent fuel receipt under line (A) of the benefit schedule
shall be made on the date of execution of the benefits
agreement and thereafter on the anniversary date of such
execution. Annual payments after the first spent fuel receipt
until closure of the facility under line (C) of the benefit
schedule shall be made on the anniversary date of such first
spent fuel receipt.
``(4) Reduction.--If the first spent fuel payment under
line (B) is made within 6 months after the last annual
payment prior to the receipt of spent fuel under line (A) of
the benefit schedule, such first spent fuel payment under
line (B) of the benefit schedule shall be reduced by an
amount equal to \1/12\ of such annual payment under line (A)
of the benefit schedule for each full month less than 6 that
has not elapsed since the last annual payment under line (A)
of the benefit schedule.
``(b) Contents.--A benefits agreement under section 302
shall provide that--
``(1) the parties to the agreement shall share with one
another information relevant to the licensing process for the
interim storage facility or repository, as it becomes
available; and
``(2) the affected unit of local government that is party
to such agreement may comment on the development of the
integrated management system and on documents required under
law or regulations governing the effects of the system on the
public health and safety.
``(c) Construction.--The signature of the Secretary on a
valid benefits agreement under section 302 shall constitute a
commitment by the United States to make payments in
accordance with such agreement.
``SEC. 304. ACCEPTANCE OF BENEFITS.
``(a) Consent.--The acceptance or use of any of the
benefits provided under this title by any affected unit of
local government shall not be deemed to be an expression of
consent, express, or denied, either under the Constitution of
the State of Nevada or any law thereof, to the siting of the
interim storage facility or repository in the State of
Nevada, any provision of such Constitution or laws to the
contrary notwithstanding.
``(b) Arguments.--Neither the United States nor any other
entity may assert any argument based on legal or equitable
estoppel, or acquiescence, or waiver, or consensual
involvement, in response to any decision by the State of
Nevada, to oppose the siting in Nevada of the interim storage
facility or repository premised upon or related to the
acceptance or use of benefits under this title.
``(c) Liability.--No liability of any nature shall accrue
to be asserted against the State
[[Page H9686]]
of Nevada, its Governor, any official thereof, or any
official of any governmental unit thereof, premised solely
upon the acceptance or use of benefits under this title.
``SEC. 305. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS.
``None of the funding provided under section 303 may be
used--
``(1) directly or indirectly to influence legislative
action on any matter pending before Congress or a State
legislature or for any lobbying activity as provided in
section 1913 of title 18, United States Code;
``(2) for litigation purposes; and
``(3) to support multistate efforts or other coalition-
building activities inconsistent with the purposes of this
Act.
``SEC. 306. INITIAL LAND CONVEYANCES.
``(a) Conveyance of Public Lands.--Within 120 days of the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior,
or other agency with jurisdiction over the public lands
described in subsection (b), shall convey the public lands
described in subsection (b) to the appropriate county, unless
the county notifies the Secretary of the Interior or the head
of such other appropriate agency in writing within 60 days of
such date of enactment that it elects not to take title to
all or any part of the property, except that any lands
conveyed to the County of Nye, County of Lincoln, or the City
of Caliente under this subsection that are subject to a
Federal grazing permit or a similar federally granted
privilege shall be conveyed between 60 and 120 days of the
earliest time the Federal agency administering or granting
the privilege would be able to legally terminate such
privilege under the statutes and regulations existing at the
date of enactment of this Act, unless the Federal agency,
county or city, and the affected holder of the privilege
negotiate an agreement that allows for an earlier conveyance.
``(b) Special Conveyances.--Subject to valid existing
rights and notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of
the Interior or the head of the other appropriate agency
shall convey:
``(1) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: Proposed Pahrump Industrial Park Site
Map 2: Proposed Lathrop Wells (Gate 510) Industrial Park
Site
Map 3: Pahrump Landfill Sites
Map 4: Amargosa Valley Regional Landfill Site
Map 5: Amargosa Valley Municipal Landfill Site
Map 6: Beatty Landfill/Transfer station Site
Map 7: Round Mountain Landfill Site
Map 8: Tonopah Landfill Site
Map 9: Gabbs Landfill Site.
``(2) To the County of Lincoln, Nevada, the following
public lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and
on file with the Secretary:
Map 2: Lincoln County, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
Jointly with the City of Caliente
Map 3: Lincoln County, Parcels F and G, Mixed Use,
Industrial Sites
Map 4: Lincoln County, Parcels H and I, Mixed Use and
Airport Expansion Sites
Map 5: Lincoln County, Parcels J and K, Mixed Use, Airport
and Landfill Expansion Sites
Map 6: Lincoln County, Parcels E and L, Mixed Use, Airport
and Industrial Expansion Sites.
``(3) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated October 11, 1995, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: City of Caliente, Parcels A, B, C and D, Community
Growth, Landfill Expansion and Community Recreation Sites
Map 2: City of Caliente, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site,
jointly with Lincoln County.
``(c) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.--The
activities of the Secretary and the head of any other Federal
agency in connection with subsections (a) and (b) shall be
considered preliminary decision making activities. No such
activity shall require the preparation of an environmental
impact statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) or
any environmental review under subparagraph (E) or (F) of
section 102(2) of such Act.
``TITLE IV--FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION
``SEC. 401. PROGRAM FUNDING.
``(a) Contracts.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--In the performance of the
Secretary's functions under this Act, the Secretary is
authorized to enter into contracts with any person who
generates or holds title to spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste of domestic origin for the acceptance of
title and possession, transportation, interim storage, and
disposal of such spent fuel or waste upon the payment of fees
in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). Fees assessed
pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid to the Treasury of
the United States and shall be available for use by the
Secretary pursuant to this section until expended.
``(2) Annual fees.--
``(A) Electricity.--Under a contract entered into under
paragraph (1) there shall be a fee for electricity generated
by civilian nuclear power reactors and sold on or after the
date of enactment of this Act. The aggregate amount of such
fees collected during each fiscal year shall be no greater
than the annual level of appropriations for expenditures on
the possession, transportation, interim storage, and disposal
of such spent fuel or waste consistent with subsection (d)
for that fiscal year, minus--
``(i) any unobligated balance of fees collected during the
previous fiscal year;
``(ii) such appropriations required to be funded by the
Federal Government pursuant to section 403; and
``(iii) the amount of one-time fees received pursuant to
paragraph (3).
The Secretary shall determine the level of the annual fee for
each civilian nuclear power reactor based on the amount of
electricity generated and sold, except that the annual fee
shall not exceed 1.0 mill per kilowatt-hour generated and
sold. Fees assessed pursuant to this subparagraph shall be
paid to the Treasury of the United States and shall be
available for use by the Secretary pursuant to this section
until expended.
``(B) Expenditures if shortfall.--If, during any fiscal
year, the aggregate amount of fees assessed pursuant to
subparagraph (A) is less than the annual level of
appropriations for expenditures on those activities specified
in subsection (d) for that fiscal year, minus--
``(i) any unobligated balance collected pursuant to this
section during the previous fiscal year;
``(ii) such appropriations required to be funded by the
Federal Government pursuant to section 403; and
``(iii) the amount of one-time fees received pursuant to
paragraph (3).
the Secretary may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste
Fund up to the level of the fees assessed.
``(C) Budget priorities if shortfall.--If, during any
fiscal year, the provisions of subparagraph (B) come into
effect--
``(i) the Secretary, for purposes of preparing annual
requests for appropriations and allocating appropriated funds
among competing requirements under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1997, shall accord--
``(I) the activities leading to an operating repository the
highest priority; and
``(II) the activities leading to an operating interim
storage facility under section 204 the next highest priority;
and
``(ii) the Commission, for purposes of preparing annual
requests for appropriations and allocating appropriated funds
among competing requirements under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1997, shall accord--
``(I) the activities leading to an operating repository the
highest priority; and
``(II) the activities leading to an operating interim
storage facility under section 204 the next highest priority.
``(D) Rules.--The Secretary shall, by rule, establish
procedures necessary to implement this paragraph.
``(3) One-time fee.--The one-time fee collected under
contracts executed under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 before the date of enactment of this Act
on spent nuclear fuel, or high-level radioactive waste
derived from spent nuclear fuel, which fuel was used to
generate electricity in a civilian nuclear power reactor
before April 7, 1983, shall be paid to the Treasury. The
Secretary shall collect all such fees before the expiration
of fiscal year 2002. The Commission shall suspend the license
of any licensee who fails or refuses to pay the full amount
of the fee referred to in this paragraph and the license
shall remain suspended until the full amount of the fee
referred to in this paragraph is paid. In paying such a fee,
the person delivering such spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive wastes, to the Secretary shall have no further
financial obligation under this paragraph to the Federal
Government for the long-term storage and permanent disposal
of such spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(b) Advance Contracting Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) License issuance and renewal.--The Commission shall
not issue or renew a license to any person to use a
utilization or production facility under the authority of
section 103 or 104 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2133, 2134) unless--
``(i) such person has entered into a contract under
subsection (a) with the Secretary; or
``(ii) the Secretary affirms in writing that such person is
actively and in good faith negotiating with the Secretary for
a contract under subsection (a).
``(B) Precondition.--The Commission, as it deems necessary
or appropriate, may require as a precondition to the issuance
or renewal of a license under section 103 or 104 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134) that
the applicant for such license shall have entered into an
agreement with the Secretary for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that may
result from the use of such license.
``(2) Disposal in repository.--Except as provided in
paragraph (1), no spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste generated or owned by any person (other
than a department of the United States referred to in section
101 or 102 of title 5, United States Code) may be disposed of
by the Secretary in the repository unless the generator or
owner of such spent fuel or waste has entered into a contract
under subsection (a) with the Secretary by not later than the
date on which such generator or owner commences generation
of, or takes title to, such spent fuel or waste.
``(3) Assignment.--The rights and duties of a party to a
contract entered into under this section may be assignable
with transfer of
[[Page H9687]]
title to the spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive
waste involved.
``(4) Disposal condition.--No spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste generated or owned by any department
of the United States referred to in section 101 or 102 of
title 5, United States Code, may be stored or disposed of by
the Secretary at the interim storage facility or repository
in the integrated management system developed under this Act
unless, in each fiscal year, such department funds its
appropriate portion of the costs of such storage and disposal
as specified in section 403.
``(c) Nuclear Waste Fund.--
``(1) In general.--The Nuclear Waste Fund established in
the Treasury of the United States under section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 shall continue in effect
under this Act and shall consist of--
``(A) all receipts, proceeds, and recoveries realized by
the Secretary before the date of enactment of this Act;
``(B) any appropriations made by the Congress before the
date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 to
the Nuclear Waste Fund; and
``(C) all interest paid on amounts invested by the
Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph (3)(B).
``(2) Use.--The Nuclear Waste Fund shall be used only for
purposes of the integrated management system.
``(3) Administration of nuclear waste fund.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold
the Nuclear Waste Fund and, after consultation with the
Secretary, annually report to the Congress on the financial
condition and operations of the Nuclear Waste Fund during the
preceding fiscal year.
``(B) Amounts in excess of current needs.--If the Secretary
determines that the Nuclear Waste Fund contains at any time
amounts in excess of current needs, the Secretary may request
the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such amounts, or any
portion of such amounts as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate, in obligations of the United States--
``(i) having maturities determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury to be appropriate to the needs of the Nuclear Waste
Fund; and
``(ii) bearing interest at rates determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into
consideration the current average market yield on outstanding
marketable obligations of the United States with remaining
periods to maturity comparable to the maturities of
such investments, except that the interest rate on such
investments shall not exceed the average interest rate
applicable to existing borrowings.
``(C) Exemption.--Receipts, proceeds, and recoveries
realized by the Secretary under this section, and
expenditures of amounts from the Nuclear Waste Fund, shall be
exempt from annual apportionment under the provisions of
subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States Code.
``(d) Use of Appropriated Funds.--During each fiscal year,
the Secretary may make expenditures of funds collected after
the date of enactment of this Act under this section and
section 403, up to the level of appropriations for that
fiscal year pursuant to subsection (f) only for purposes of
the integrated management system.
``(e) Prohibition on Use of Appropriations and Nuclear
Waste Fund.--The Secretary shall not make expenditures of
funds collected pursuant to this section or section 403 to
design or construct systems and components for the
transportation, storage, or disposal of spent nuclear fuel
from civilian nuclear power reactors.
``(f) Appropriations.--
``(1) Budget.--The Secretary shall submit the budget for
implementation of the Secretary's responsibilities under this
Act to the Office of Management and Budget triennially along
with the budget of the Department of Energy submitted at such
time in accordance with chapter 11 of title 31, United States
Code. The budget shall consist of the estimates made by the
Secretary of expenditures under this Act and other relevant
financial matters for the succeeding 3 fiscal years, and
shall be included in the budget of the United States
Government.
``(2) Appropriations.--Appropriations shall be subject to
triennial authorization. During each fiscal year, the
Secretary may make expenditures, up to the level of
appropriations, out of the funds collected pursuant to this
section and section 403, if the Secretary transmits the
amounts appropriated for implementation of this Act to the
Commission and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in
appropriate proportion to the collection of such funds.
``(g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect
October 1, 1998.
``SEC. 402. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT.
``(a) Continuation of Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.--The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management established under section 304(a) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 as constituted prior to the date of
enactment of this Act, shall continue in effect subsequent to
the date of enactment of this Act.
``(b) Functions of Director.--The Director of the Office
shall be responsible for carrying out the functions of the
Secretary under this Act, subject to the general supervision
of the Secretary. The Director of the Office shall be
directly responsible to the Secretary.
``(c) Audits.--
``(1) Standard.--The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, its contractors, and subcontractors at all tiers,
shall conduct, or have conducted, audits and examinations of
their operations in accordance with the usual and customary
practices of private corporations engaged in large nuclear
construction projects consistent with its role in the
program.
``(2) Time.--The management practices and performances of
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management shall be
audited every 5 years by an independent management consulting
firm with significant experience in similar audits of private
corporations engaged in large nuclear construction projects.
The first such audit shall be conducted 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
``(3) Comptroller general.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall annually make an audit of the Office, in
accordance with such regulations as the Comptroller General
may prescribe. The Comptroller General shall have access to
such books, records, accounts, and other materials of the
Office as the Comptroller General determines to be necessary
for the preparation of such audit. The Comptroller General
shall submit to the Congress a report on the results of
each audit conducted under this section.
``(4) Time.--No audit contemplated by this subsection shall
take longer than 30 days to conduct. An audit report shall be
issued in final form no longer than 60 days after the audit
is commenced.
``(5) Public documents.--All audit reports shall be public
documents and available to any individual upon request.
``SEC. 403. DEFENSE CONTRIBUTION.
``(a) Allocation.--No later than one year from the date of
enactment of this Act, acting pursuant to section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, the Secretary shall issue a
final rule establishing the appropriate portion of the costs
of managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste under this Act allocable to the interim storage or
permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel, high-level
radioactive waste from atomic energy defense activities, and
spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors. The share
of costs allocable to the management of spent nuclear fuel,
high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy defense
activities, and spent nuclear fuel from foreign research
reactors shall include--
``(1) an appropriate portion of the costs associated with
research and development activities with respect to
development of the interim storage facility and repository;
and
``(2) interest on the principal amounts due calculated by
reference to the appropriate Treasury bill rate as if the
payments were made at a point in time consistent with the
payment dates for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste under the contracts.
``(b) Appropriation Request.--In addition to any request
for an appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the
Secretary shall request annual appropriations from general
revenues in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of the
management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste from atomic energy defense activities as established
under subsection (a).
``(c) Report.--In conjunction with the annual report
submitted to Congress under section 702, the Secretary shall
advise the Congress annually of the amount of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy
defense activities requiring management in the integrated
management system.
``(d) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary, from general revenues, for
carrying out the purposes of this Act, such sums as may be
necessary to pay the costs of the management of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste from atomic energy
defense activities as established under subsection (a).
``TITLE V--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``SEC. 501. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS.
``If the requirements of any law (other than the Federal
Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as such Acts pertain to
fish and wildlife and wetlands) are inconsistent with or
duplicative of the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and
this Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the Secretary
shall comply only with the requirements of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and this Act in implementing the integrated
management system. Any requirement of a State or political
subdivision of a State is preempted if--
``(1) complying with such requirement and a requirement of
this Act is impossible; or
``(2) such requirement, as applied or enforced, is an
obstacle to accomplishing or carrying out this Act or a
regulation under this Act.
``SEC. 502. WATER RIGHTS.
``(a) No Federal Reservation.--Nothing in this Act or any
other Act of Congress shall constitute or be construed to
constitute either an express or implied Federal reservation
of water or water rights for any purpose arising under this
Act.
``(b) Acquisition and Exercise of Water Rights Under Nevada
Law.--The United States may acquire and exercise such water
rights as it deems necessary to carry out its
responsibilities under this Act pursuant to the substantive
and procedural requirements
[[Page H9688]]
of the State of Nevada. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize the use of eminent domain by the
United States to acquire water rights for such lands.
``(c) Exercise of Water Rights Generally Under Nevada
Laws.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the
exercise of water rights as provided under Nevada State laws.
``SEC. 503. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS.
``(a) Jurisdiction of United States Courts of Appeals.--
``(1) Original and exclusive jurisdiction.--Except for
review in the Supreme Court of the United States, and except
as otherwise provided in this Act, the United States courts
of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over any civil action--
``(A) for review of any final decision or action of the
Secretary, the President, or the Commission under this Act;
``(B) alleging the failure of the Secretary, the President,
or the Commission to make any decision, or take any action,
required under this Act;
``(C) challenging the constitutionality of any decision
made, or action taken, under any provision of this Act; or
``(D) for review of any environmental impact statement
prepared or environmental assessment made pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) with respect to any action under this Act or alleging a
failure to prepare such statement with respect to any such
action.
``(2) Venue.--The venue of any proceeding under this
section shall be in the judicial circuit in which the
petitioner involved resides or has its principal office, or
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
``(b) Deadline for Commencing Action.--A civil action for
judicial review described under subsection (a)(1) may be
brought no later than 180 days after the date of the decision
or action or failure to act involved, as the case may be,
except that if a party shows that the party did not know of
the decision or action complained of or of the failure to
act, and that a reasonable person acting under the
circumstances would not have known of such decision, action,
or failure to act, such party may bring a civil action no
later than 180 days after the date such party acquired actual
or constructive knowledge of such decision, action, or
failure to act.
``(c) Application of Other Law.--The provisions of this
section relating to any matter shall apply in lieu of the
provisions of any other Act relating to the same matter.
``SEC. 504. LICENSING OF FACILITY EXPANSIONS AND
TRANSSHIPMENTS.
``(a) Oral Argument.--In any Commission hearing under
section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2239)
on an application for a license, or for an amendment to an
existing license, filed after January 7, 1983, to expand the
spent nuclear fuel storage capacity at the site of a civilian
nuclear power reactor, through the use of high-density fuel
storage racks, fuel rod compaction, the transshipment of
spent nuclear fuel to another civilian nuclear power reactor
within the same utility system, the construction of
additional spent nuclear fuel pool capacity or dry storage
capacity, or by other means, the Commission shall, at the
request of any party, provide an opportunity for oral
argument with respect to any matter which the Commission
determines to be in controversy among the parties. The oral
argument shall be preceded by such discovery procedures as
the rules of the Commission shall provide. The Commission
shall require each party, including the Commission staff,
to submit in written form, at the time of the oral
argument, a summary of the facts, data, and arguments upon
which such party proposes to rely that are known at such
time to such party. Only facts and data in the form of
sworn testimony or written submission may be relied upon
by the parties during oral argument. Of the materials that
may be submitted by the parties during oral argument, the
Commission shall only consider those facts and data that
are submitted in the form of sworn testimony or written
submission.
``(b) Adjudicatory Hearing.--
``(1) Designation.--At the conclusion of any oral argument
under subsection (a), the Commission shall designate any
disputed question of fact, together with any remaining
questions of law, for resolution in an adjudicatory hearing
only if it determines that--
``(A) there is a genuine and substantial dispute of fact
which can only be resolved with sufficient accuracy by the
introduction of evidence in an adjudicatory hearing; and
``(B) the decision of the Commission is likely to depend in
whole or in part on the resolution of such dispute.
``(2) Determination.--In making a determination under this
subsection, the Commission--
``(A) shall designate in writing the specific facts that
are in genuine and substantial dispute, the reason why the
decision of the agency is likely to depend on the resolution
of such facts, and the reason why an adjudicatory hearing is
likely to resolve the dispute; and
``(B) shall not consider--
``(i) any issue relating to the design, construction, or
operation of any civilian nuclear power reactor already
licensed to operate at such site, or any civilian nuclear
power reactor to which a construction permit has been granted
at such site, unless the Commission determines that any such
issue substantially affects the design, construction, or
operation of the facility or activity for which such license
application, authorization, or amendment is being considered;
or
``(ii) any siting or design issue fully considered and
decided by the Commission in connection with the issuance of
a construction permit or operating license for a civilian
nuclear power reactor at such site, unless--
``(I) such issue results from any revision of siting or
design criteria by the Commission following such decision;
and
``(II) the Commission determines that such issue
substantially affects the design, construction, or operation
of the facility or activity for which such license
application, authorization, or amendment is being considered.
``(3) Application.--The provisions of paragraph (2)(B)
shall apply only with respect to licenses, authorizations, or
amendments to licenses or authorizations, applied for under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) before
December 31, 2005.
``(4) Construction.--The provisions of this section shall
not apply to the first application for a license or license
amendment received by the Commission to expand onsite spent
fuel storage capacity by the use of a new technology not
previously approved for use at any nuclear power plant by the
Commission.
``(c) Judicial Review.--No court shall hold unlawful or set
aside a decision of the Commission in any proceeding
described in subsection (a) because of a failure by the
Commission to use a particular procedure pursuant to this
section unless--
``(1) an objection to the procedure used was presented to
the Commission in a timely fashion or there are extraordinary
circumstances that excuse the failure to present a timely
objection; and
``(2) the court finds that such failure has precluded a
fair consideration and informed resolution of a significant
issue of the proceeding taken as a whole.
``SEC. 505. SITING A SECOND REPOSITORY.
``(a) Congressional Action Required.--The Secretary may not
conduct site-specific activities with respect to a second
repository unless Congress has specifically authorized and
appropriated funds for such activities.
``(b) Report.--The Secretary shall report to the President
and to Congress on or after January 1, 2007, but not later
than January 1, 2010, on the need for a second repository.
``SEC. 506. FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE SITE CLOSURE.
``(a) Financial Arrangements.--
``(1) Standards and instructions.--The Commission shall
establish by rule, regulation, or order, after public notice,
and in accordance with section 181 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2231), such standards and instructions as
the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to ensure in
the case of each license for the disposal of low-level
radioactive waste that an adequate bond, surety, or other
financial arrangement (as determined by the Commission) will
be provided by a licensee to permit completion of all
requirements established by the Commission for the
decontamination, decommissioning, site closure, and
reclamation of sites, structures, and equipment used in
conjunction with such low-level radioactive waste. Such
financial arrangements shall be provided and approved by the
Commission, or, in the case of sites within the boundaries of
any agreement State under section 274 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021), by the appropriate State or
State entity, prior to issuance of licenses for low-level
radioactive waste disposal or, in the case of licenses in
effect on January 7, 1983, prior to termination of such
licenses.
``(2) Bonding, surety, or other financial arrangements.--If
the Commission determines that any long-term maintenance or
monitoring, or both, will be necessary at a site described in
paragraph (1), the Commission shall ensure before termination
of the license involved that the licensee has made available
such bonding, surety, or other financial arrangements as may
be necessary to ensure that any necessary long-term
maintenance or monitoring needed for such site will be
carried out by the person having title and custody for such
site following license termination.
``(b) Title and Custody.--
``(1) Authority of secretary.--The Secretary shall have
authority to assume title and custody of low-level
radioactive waste and the land on which such waste is
disposed of, upon request of the owner of such waste and land
and following termination of the license issued by the
Commission for such disposal, if the Commission determines
that--
``(A) the requirements of the Commission for site closure,
decommissioning, and decontamination have been met by the
licensee involved and that such licensee is in compliance
with the provisions of subsection (a);
``(B) such title and custody will be transferred to the
Secretary without cost to the Federal Government; and
``(C) Federal ownership and management of such site is
necessary or desirable in order to protect the public health
and safety, and the environment.
``(2) Protection.--If the Secretary assumes title and
custody of any such waste and land under this subsection, the
Secretary shall maintain such waste and land in a manner that
will protect the public health and safety, and the
environment.
[[Page H9689]]
``(c) Special Sites.--If the low-level radioactive waste
involved is the result of a licensed activity to recover
zirconium, hafnium, and rare earths from source material, the
Secretary, upon request of the owner of the site involved,
shall assume title and custody of such waste and the land on
which it is disposed when such site has been decontaminated
and stabilized in accordance with the requirements
established by the Commission and when such owner has made
adequate financial arrangements approved by the Commission
for the long-term maintenance and monitoring of such site.
``SEC. 507. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TRAINING
AUTHORIZATION.
``The Commission is authorized and directed to promulgate
regulations, or other appropriate regulatory guidance, for
the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear
powerplant operators, supervisors, technicians, and other
appropriate operating personnel. Such regulations or guidance
shall establish simulator training requirements for
applicants for civilian nuclear powerplant operator
licenses and for operator requalification programs;
requirements governing Commission administration of
requalification examinations; requirements for operating
tests at civilian nuclear powerplant simulators, and
instructional requirements for civilian nuclear powerplant
licensee personnel training programs.
``SEC. 508. ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE.
``The acceptance schedule shall be implemented in
accordance with the following:
``(1) Acceptance priority ranking shall be determined by
the Department's annual `Acceptance Priority Ranking' report.
``(2) The Secretary's spent fuel acceptance rate shall be
no less than the following: 1,200 MTU in 2000 and 1,200 MTU
in 2001, 2,000 MTU in 2002 and 2,000 MTU in 2003, 2,700 MTU
in 2004, and 3,000 MTU thereafter.
``(3) If the Secretary is unable to begin acceptance by
January 31, 2000 at the rates specified in paragraph (2), or
if the cumulative amount accepted in any year thereafter is
less than that which would have been accepted under the
acceptance rate specified in paragraph (2), the acceptance
schedule shall be adjusted upward such that within 5 years of
the start of acceptance by the Secretary--
``(A) the total quantity accepted by the Secretary is
consistent with the total quantity that the Secretary would
have accepted if the Secretary had began acceptance in 1998,
and
``(B) thereafter the acceptance rate is equivalent to the
rate that would be in place pursuant to paragraph (2) above
if the Secretary had commenced acceptance in 1998.
``(4) The acceptance schedule shall not be affected or
modified in any way as a result of the Secretary's acceptance
of any material other than contract holders' spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
``SEC. 509. SUBSEABED OR OCEAN WATER DISPOSAL.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(1) the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste is prohibited;
and
``(2) no funds shall be obligated for any activity relating
to the subseabed or ocean water disposal of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``SEC. 510. COMPENSATION.
``The Secretary shall compensate the owners of any land the
value of which is diminished by actions taken under this Act
as follows:
``(1) If the value of the land, as set by a professional
appraiser, is diminished by at least 20 percent, the
Secretary shall provide compensation to the owner of the land
so that when the compensation is added to the value of the
land the value of the land will not be considered as
diminished; and
``(2) If the value of the land is diminished by at least 50
percent, the Secretary shall offer to purchase the land at
its value before action was taken under this Act.
``TITLE VI--NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD
``SEC. 601. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this title--
``(1) Chairman.--The term `Chairman' means the Chairman of
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
``(2) Board.--The term `Board' means the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board continued under section 602.
``SEC. 602. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD.
``(a) Continuation of Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board.--The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, established
under section 502(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
as constituted prior to the date of enactment of this Act,
shall continue in effect subsequent to the date of enactment
of this Act.
``(b) Members.--
``(1) Number.--The Board shall consist of 11 members who
shall be appointed by the President not later than 90 days
after December 22, 1987, from among persons nominated by the
National Academy of Sciences in accordance with paragraph
(3).
``(2) Chair.--The President shall designate a member of the
Board to serve as Chairman.
``(3) National academy of sciences.--
``(A) Nominations.--The National Academy of Sciences shall,
not later than 90 days after December 22, 1987, nominate not
less than 22 persons for appointment to the Board from among
persons who meet the qualifications described in subparagraph
(C).
``(B) Vacancies.--The National Academy of Sciences shall
nominate not less than 2 persons to fill any vacancy on the
Board from among persons who meet the qualifications
described in subparagraph (C).
``(C) Nominees.--
(i) Each person nominated for appointment to the Board
shall be--
``(I) eminent in a field of science or engineering,
including environmental sciences; and
``(II) selected solely on the basis of established records
of distinguished service.
``(ii) The membership of the Board shall be representatives
of the broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines
related to activities under this title.
``(iii) No person shall be nominated for appointment to the
Board who is an employee of--
``(I) the Department of Energy;
``(II) a national laboratory under contract with the
Department of Energy; or
``(III) an entity performing spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste activities under contract with the
Department of Energy.
``(4) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled
by the nomination and appointment process described in
paragraphs (1) and (3).
``(5) Terms.--Members of the Board shall be appointed for
terms of 4 years, each such term to commence 120 days after
December 22, 1987, except that of the 11 members first
appointed to the Board, 5 shall serve for 2 years and 6 shall
serve for 4 years, to be designated by the President at the
time of appointment.
``SEC. 603. FUNCTIONS.
``The Board shall evaluate the technical and scientific
validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary after
December 22, 1987, including--
``(1) site characterization activities; and
``(2) activities relating to the packaging or
transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste.
``SEC. 604. INVESTIGATORY POWERS.
``(a) Hearings.--Upon request of the Chairman or a majority
of the members of the Board, the Board may hold such
hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such
testimony, and receive such evidence, as the Board considers
appropriate. Any member of the Board may administer oaths or
affirmations to witnesses appearing before the Board.
``(b) Production of Documents.--
``(1) Response to inquiries.--Upon the request of the
Chairman or a majority of the members of the Board, and
subject to existing law, the Secretary (or any contractor of
the Secretary) shall provide the Board with such records,
files, papers, data, or information as may be necessary to
respond to any inquiry of the Board under this title.
``(2) Extent.--Subject to existing law, information
obtainable under paragraph (1) shall not be limited to final
work products of the Secretary, but shall include drafts of
such products and documentation of work in progress.
``SEC. 605. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.
``(a) In General.--Each member of the Board shall be paid
at the rate of pay payable for level III of the Executive
Schedule for each day (including travel time) such member is
engaged in the work of the Board.
``(b) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Board may
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in the same manner as is permitted under
sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
``SEC. 606. STAFF.
``(a) Clerical Staff.--
``(1) Authority of chairman.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Chairman may appoint and fix the compensation of such
clerical staff as may be necessary to discharge the
responsibilities of the Board.
``(2) Provisions of title 5.--Clerical staff shall be
appointed subject to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 3 of such title relating
to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
``(b) Professional Staff.--
``(1) Authority of chairman.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and
(3), the Chairman may appoint and fix the compensation of
such professional staff as may be necessary to discharge the
responsibilities of the Board.
``(2) Number.--Not more than 10 professional staff members
may be appointed under this subsection.
``(3) Title 5.--Professional staff members may be appointed
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
may be paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no
individual so appointed may receive pay in excess of the
annual rate of basic pay payable for GS-18 of the General
Schedule.
``SEC. 607. SUPPORT SERVICES.
``(a) General Services.--To the extent permitted by law and
requested by the Chairman, the Administrator of General
Services shall provide the Board with necessary
administrative services, facilities, and support on a
reimbursable basis.
``(b) Accounting, Research, and Technology Assessment
Services.--The Comptroller General, the Librarian of
Congress, and the Director of the Office of Technology
[[Page H9690]]
Assessment shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject
to the availability of funds, provide the Board with such
facilities, support, funds and services, including staff, as
may be necessary for the effective performance of the
functions of the Board.
``(c) Additional Support.--Upon the request of the
Chairman, the Board may secure directly from the head of any
department or agency of the United States information
necessary to enable it to carry out this title.
``(d) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in
the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
``(e) Experts and Consultants.--Subject to such rules as
may be prescribed by the Board, the Chairman may procure
temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of
title 5 of the United States Code, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum
annual rate of basic pay payable for GS-18 of the General
Schedule.
``SEC. 608. REPORT.
``The Board shall report not less than 2 times per year to
Congress and the Secretary its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
``SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated for expenditures
such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this title.
``SEC. 610. TERMINATION OF THE BOARD.
``The Board shall cease to exist not later than one year
after the date on which the Secretary begins disposal of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste in the
repository.
``TITLE VII--MANAGEMENT REFORM
``SEC. 701. MANAGEMENT REFORM INITIATIVES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to take
actions as necessary to improve the management of the
civilian radioactive waste management program to ensure that
the program is operated, to the maximum extent practicable,
in like manner as a private business.
``(b) Site Characterization.--The Secretary shall employ,
on an on-going basis, integrated performance modeling to
identify appropriate parameters for the remaining site
characterization effort and to eliminate studies of
parameters that are shown not to affect long-term repository
performance.
``SEC. 702. REPORTING.
``(a) Initial Report.--Within 180 days of the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress
on its planned actions for implementing the provisions of
this Act, including the development of the Integrated
Waste Management System. Such report shall include--
``(1) an analysis of the Secretary's progress in meeting
its statutory and contractual obligation to accept title to,
possession of, and delivery of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste beginning no later than January 31,
2000, and in accordance with the acceptance schedule;
``(2) a detailed schedule and timeline showing each action
that the Secretary intends to take to meet the Secretary's
obligations under this Act and the contracts;
``(3) a detailed description of the Secretary's contingency
plans in the event that the Secretary is unable to meet the
planned schedule and timeline; and
``(4) an analysis by the Secretary of its funding needs for
fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
``(b) Annual Reports.--On each anniversary of the submittal
of the report required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall
make annual reports to the Congress for the purpose of
updating the information contained in such report. The annual
reports shall be brief and shall notify the Congress of--
``(1) any modifications to the Secretary's schedule and
timeline for meeting its obligations under this Act;
``(2) the reasons for such modifications, and the status of
the implementation of any of the Secretary's contingency
plans; and
``(3) the Secretary's analysis of its funding needs for the
ensuing 5 fiscal years.''.
SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF CONTRACTS.
Subsequent to the date of enactment of this Act, the
contracts executed under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 shall continue in effect under this Act in
accordance with their terms except to the extent that the
contracts have been modified by the parties to the contract.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in
House Report 105-354. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
specified, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
After a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a day,
the Chairman may entertain another such motion on that day only if
offered by the majority leader or his designee.
After a motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill has been
rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion during
further consideration of the bill.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1, printed in House
Report 105-354, as modified.
Amendment No. 1, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1,
as modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment No. 1, as modified, offered by Mr. Dan Schaefer
of Colorado:
Page 19, line 2, insert before the period the following:
, using routes that minimize, to the maximum practicable
extent and consistent with Federal requirements governing
transportation of hazardous materials, transportation of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through
populated areas
Page 19, beginning in line 3, strike ``In conjunction
with'' and insert the following:
``(1) In general.--In conjunction with''
and add after line 16 on page 19 the following:
``(2) Rail routes.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation
shall establish procedures for the selection of preferred
rail routes for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste to the interim storage site and
the repository site. Such procedures shall be established in
consultation with the designated emergency services planning
management official for any State or Indian tribe affected by
the rail routes selected.
Page 20, line 20, insert after ``organizations'' the
following: ``, voluntary emergency response organizations,''.
Page 24, line 16, strike ``regulations promulgated by the
Commission'' and insert ``existing Federal regulations''.
Page 25, beginning on line 1, strike ``The'' and all that
follows through ``paragraph (1)'' on line 3 and insert ``If
training standards are required to be promulgated under
paragraph (1), such standards''.
Page 25, line 5, strike ``include the following
provisions--'' and insert ``provide for--''.
Page 25, after line 19, insert the following:
``The Secretary of Transportation may specify an appropriate
combination of knowledge, skills, and prior training to
fulfill the minimum number of hours requirements of
subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
Page 43, strike lines 17 and all that follows through line
13 on page 44, and insert the following:
``SEC. 207. APPLICABILITY.
``Nothing in this Act shall affect the application of
chapter 51 of title 49, United States Code; part A of
subtitle V of title 49, United States Code; part B of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code; and title 23,
United States Code.''.
Page 81, after line 13, insert the following:
``SEC. 510. SEPARABILITY.
``If any provision of this Act, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of
such provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected
thereby.''.
In the table of contents--
(1) in the item relating to section 207 amend the heading
to read as follows: ``Applicability''; and
(2) add at the end of title V the following:
``Sec. 510. Separability.
Page 21, line 6, redesignate subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C) and insert after line 5 the following:
``(B) Emergency responder training standards.--The training
standards for persons responsible for responding to emergency
situations occurring during the removal and transportation of
spent nuclear and high level radioactive waste shall, in
accordance with existing regulations, ensure their ability to
protect nearby persons, property, or the environment from the
effects of accidents involving spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer] and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer].
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify that this pending amendment is an
amendment made in order earlier by a unanimous consent request. The
manager's amendment makes a number of noncontroversial changes to H.R.
1270, and reflects the views of the Committee on Commerce, the
Committee on Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
[[Page H9691]]
{time} 1830
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms.
McCarthy].
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the esteemed
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], ranking member, as well as the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer], and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton], the sponsor of H.R. 1270. They have all been
helpful and supportive in working with me to help clarify an issue
related to rail transportation that is incorporated in the bill before
us.
Mr. Chairman, it is an issue which is critical to the constituents in
my district and the citizens of Missouri. While no specific routes for
rail shipments have been determined, approximately 1,400 rail shipments
of waste projected over the next 30 years, possibly a third of these
wastes would be transported through Missouri.
There currently are no Federal regulations related to determining
preferred rail routes for transportation of this material. My language
in this manager's amendment establishes this process to safeguard rail
transportation and ensure that the appropriate State and tribal
authorities are involved in the decision-making process.
Mr. Chairman, this type of consultative relationship and route
planning is essential to ensuring the highest levels of safety to our
communities. There are other important clarifications in the manager's
amendment that further advance safety and transportation portions of
this bill. I thank the managers and urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my esteemed ranking member, Mr.
Hall, as well as the gentleman from Colorado, Chairman Schaefer, and
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], sponsor of H.R. 1270, who have
all been very helpful and supportive in working with me on clarifying
an important issue related to rail transportation that is incorporated
in the manager's amendment before us. This is an issue that is
critically important to the constituents in my district of Greater
Kansas City, the second largest rail hub in the nation, and the
citizens of Missouri, which contains the 3rd largest rail hub in St.
Louis.
While no specific routes for rail shipments have been determined,
approximately 1,400 rail shipments of waste are projected over thirty
years. Existing rail line options are limited for east-west transit and
lead us to the realization that a significant percentage of shipments,
possibly a third if distributed across all options, would be
transported through Missouri.
Current Hazardous Materials [HazMat] law established a process, which
this legislation builds upon, for highway routing decisions related to
transportation of spent nuclear fuel. There currently are no federal
regulations related to determining preferred rail routes for the
transportation of this material. My language in the Manager's amendment
establishes this process to safeguard rail transportation and ensure
that the appropriate state and tribal authorities are involved in the
decisionmaking process.
This type of consultative relationship and route planning is
essential to ensuring the highest level of safety for our communities.
There are other important clarifications in the manager's amendment
that further advance the safety and transportation portions of the
bill. I thank the managers for their inclusion of this language in the
amendment and urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy] has been very gracious in her
input.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to congratulate and give accolades to the
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], who has established a system
of selecting preferred rail routes, and currently there is no system
for that. I thank her and I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer],
and I thank those of the Nation's firefighters who have helped work
this out.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer].
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kildee
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kildee:
Page 4, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 5
line 11, and insert the following:
``(3) Affected indian tribe.--The term affected Indian
tribe' means an Indian tribe whose reservation is surrounded
by or borders on an affected unit of local government, or
whose federally-defined possessory or usage rights to other
lands outside of the border of the Indian tribe's reservation
arising out of Congressionally-ratified treaties may be
affected by the locating of an interim storage facility or
repository, if the Secretary finds, upon petition of the
appropriate government officials of the Indian tribe, that
such affects are both substantial and adverse to the Indian
tribe.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee] and a Member in opposition each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, we have looked over this
amendment. We have no opposition to it and we will accept it.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, with that then I will enter my remarks into
the Record.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will make sure that
Indian tribes are not inadvertently left out of the consultation or
assistance process. My amendment simply incorporates the Senate
definition of ``Affected Indian tribe''. This amendment is supported by
the Nevada tribes as well as the National Congress of American Indians.
Under the current House definition of ``affected Indian tribe'', no
Indian tribes in Nevada, including the shoshone and Paiute tribes who
have lived on this land for more than 10,000 years, will qualify for
treatment as an ``affected Indian tribe''. This strikes me and many
others as patently unfair.
These tribes are governments and ought to be treated on the same
footing as other local governments. That is to say, they ought to be
given the same opportunity and the same level of financial and
technical assistance as we are giving other Nevada communities to
enable them to carefully review program activities and evaluate the
impacts of nuclear storage on their lands.
The Senate definition of an ``affected Indian tribe'' includes tribes
whose reservation boundaries are contiguous with other affected units
of local government. This simply means that Indian tribes who are close
to the storage site will have an opportunity to receive aid and
assistance to the same extent that any other local government has.
I believe that this is a reasonable proposal and, given the fact that
the tribes in Nevada have lived on this particular land for thousands
of years, only fair.
I urge my Committee colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the House Resolution 283, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Kildee] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent that that amendment be modified by the modification
that has been placed at desk.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 7, line 14, strike ``reprocessing'' and insert
``reprocessing in the United States'', beginning in line 20
strike ``activities'' and insert ``activities in the United
States'', and in line 21, strike ``material'' and insert
``material in the United States''.
[[Page H9692]]
Page 11, line 14, strike ``reactor'' and insert ``reactor
in the United States''.
Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Traficant
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 105-354, as
modified by Mr. Traficant:
Page 6, insert after line 7 the following:
``(II) Nuclear nonproliferation.''
Page 7, line 14, strike ``reprocessing'' and insert
``reprocessing in the United States''.
Page 11, line 13 insert after ``fuel'' the following: ``,
other than foreign spent nuclear fuel as defined in section
131f(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2160(f)(4),''.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It says
that we will not become the dumping ground for any foreign waste unless
it was covered by an international agreement or military procurement
understandings.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan
Schaefer], chairman of the committee.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment
certainly prohibits the disposal of spent nuclear fuel from other
plants in foreign countries, and I think the gentleman is right on. We
worked out, I think, all the problems on this and we appreciate the
fact that we have found a resolution to this. We have no problems on
this side, and we will accept the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns
and advice, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the
ranking member.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we certainly appreciate the
modification and think it is a good amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Kildee]; the amendment No. 3, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kildee
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee],
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 408,
noes 10, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 543]
AYES--408
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--10
Barr
Barton
Coble
Ewing
Hastert
Hefley
Hostettler
Sanford
Solomon
Stump
NOT VOTING--14
Berman
Cubin
Dingell
Gonzalez
Kelly
Lewis (CA)
McIntosh
Moran (VA)
Morella
Schiff
Stokes
Tauzin
Weldon (FL)
Yates
[[Page H9693]]
{time} 1855
Messrs. COBLE, EWING, and HEFLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the second amendment
on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 3, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Traficant
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment, as modified.
The Clerk designated the amendment, as modified.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 407,
noes 11, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 544]
AYES--407
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--11
Cannon
Clyburn
Frank (MA)
Furse
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Klink
Lofgren
Martinez
Waxman
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--14
Berman
Campbell
Cubin
Gilman
Gonzalez
Kelly
Manzullo
McIntosh
Morella
Schiff
Smith (TX)
Stokes
Weldon (FL)
Yates
{time} 1906
Mr. BERRY and Mr. MILLER of California changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ensign
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Ensign:
Page 15, insert after line 8 the following:
``(e) Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit.--The Secretary
shall not take any action under this Act unless the Secretary
has with respect to such action conducted a risk assessment
which is scientifically objective, unbased, and inclusive of
all relevant data and relies, to the extent available and
practicable, on scientific findings and which is grounded in
cost-benefit principles.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan
Schaefer] will control the 10 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have offered today is consistent
with the language in the Contract With America that Republicans brought
to this floor a little over 2 years ago. It is based on a concept that
before the Government does something, we should do studies that say
what are the risks, what are the costs versus the benefits? Very
simple.
What this, H.R. 1270, does is, H.R. 1270 presumes that this Congress
knows everything that there is to know about nuclear waste. It presumes
that this Congress has all the experts that it needs right here, that
all of the studies have already been done.
And the nuclear energy industry actually says that all of the studies
say that the Yucca Mountain is suitable and all these things, when even
the Government's own scientists have said
[[Page H9694]]
the Yucca Mountain has not been deemed suitable or acceptable. That is
why the President has threatened to veto this bill. What we are saying
with this amendment is simply that the Secretary of Energy shall
conduct these studies prior to moving the bill forward.
The GAO has estimated the Yucca Mountain project to cost nearly $33
billion. Before dumping endless amounts of taxpayer dollars into the
project, let us take a step back and make sure that this is the best
use of the American people's money. If this project is as good as my
colleagues say, obvious cost-benefit analysis will show that it is.
Mr. Chairman, we are asking that the Republicans especially who
support this bill, that they be consistent in their arguments. They
have argued in the past for cost benefit analysis. And why is that?
They have argued in the past because it is a good thing to do. Before
the Government goes and does something, we should prove that there are
benefits. What are the risks? What are the benefits?
Let us just stick to the principle in the Contract With America that
we all came and we all signed in 1994 on the steps of the Capitol.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENSIGN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, this is one item in the Contract With America that passed
the House of Representatives overwhelmingly. Almost everyone agreed
that there should be some risk assessment when the Federal Government
is getting into these major Federal projects. We were guaranteed that
there would not be any danger, because there was not going to be any
delay, because that was not the objective, and now we get the perfect
example of where it should apply. I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the author of
the bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] for a simple, quick answer. How did the gentleman vote on that
provision of the Contract With America? I was looking for a ``yes'' or
``no,'' not a card game.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, even a blind
squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. I now realize the correctness
of the provision.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this Ensign amendment
would require that the Department of Energy undertake a risk assessment
before it takes any action under the act. The amendment would stop the
nuclear waste program in its tracks and would prevent the Department of
Energy from taking any action for years. It would guarantee that all
nuclear waste in this country stays right where it is, spread out all
over the country, rather than going to one safe site.
I would say, too, that the risk assessments required by the Ensign
amendment are in addition to the requirements that the Department of
Energy prepare EIS, environmental impact statements, before major
actions.
{time} 1915
Under this amendment the DOE would have to perform a risk assessment
and prepare an environmental impact statement. There is no need for the
risk assessment required by this amendment. The Department of Energy
nuclear waste program is probably the most closely scrutinized Federal
program created. There is layer after layer of oversight. The State of
Nevada oversees the program, as does the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. All of this oversight is
funded by consumers, and this would be viewed as a killer amendment. I
would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that,
first of all, new science is being discovered all the time in Nevada.
Plutonium just recently was discovered by the National Academy of
Sciences to have migrated almost one mile. The significance of that
discovery is that they did not expect that. Because all of the
proponents of the bill have been saying, first of all, Yucca Mountain
is safe, there is no water to worry about, do not worry about the
groundwater table or any of that. But science is constantly finding new
things. That is why we need this cost-benefit and risk analysis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Gibbons], who sits on the Committee on Resources, who rejected this
bill, by the way.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
First, I find it odd that people would object to a cost-benefit
analysis. It is a tool that is commonly used in private businesses
throughout America. It is widely accepted in academia as a tool by
which we make sound judgment for sound policy about what we are doing
in this Nation.
If Members want to talk about risk, let us look at the environmental
hazards that are posed by transportation of nuclear waste around
America. Let us look at the idea that this bill tells us that we can
ignore all those environmental laws that we have talked about earlier.
Let us look at the fact that we have got a train wreck right here. This
is a risk, Mr. Chairman. This is a risk for America. We need to look at
these risks, and we need to analyze what is going to be the benefit or
what is going to be the cost.
Once again, take a look at where all of these risks are going to take
place. That is 43 States in this country. Forty-three States ought to
have an opportunity to evaluate the risks of this bill and to analyze
the costs that are going to be involved to these States with the
transportation of this material through those States, through those
communities, next to those schools with kids playing out there if an
accident occurs.
This is a critically important amendment for this bill. It is an
amendment which is going to allow States or require the Secretary of
Energy to perform those analyses, to evaluate those risks, and to take
appropriate actions with that information.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I of course believe that tools are
good if they are used properly and if they are not used for
obstruction, and that is really what this amendment is. This amendment
would just simply prohibit the Secretary from taking any action. I
think it creates an absolute obligation for the Secretary to conduct
the proposed analysis subject to anything that comes under H.R. 1270,
any type action. It makes no allowance for the Secretary to conduct a
risk assessment during other steps of the process.
This proposal lacks even an adequate definition of risk assessment.
It provides no direction as to the consequences of the assessment. We
say that the EIS already requires this and it is going to be done, it
will be done, it is directed that it be done.
It throws up a number of procedural hurdles that really renders
impossible the storage as this act calls for. It is a little like back
in the 1960's, the States of New Mexico and Arizona when they were
mining copper, when the enviros, well meaning though they were, set up
a rule of law that you had to replace the terrain as it was in its
natural state. Of course, no court upheld that, but it gave rise to an
injunction that put off and put off and put off and prevented and that
caused escalation of the price.
This is a bad amendment. It is just meant to cripple. I urge that
Members vote it down.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, every major environmental group in this country opposes
H.R. 1270: The Sierra Club, the National Resource Defense Council,
Friends of the Earth, U.S. PIRG, Public Citizen, Citizen Alert, League
of Conservation Voters, Greenpeace, Nuclear Information and Resources
Service, Military Production Network.
By the way, those are the people that live around these facilities
that we are talking about that have the nuclear
[[Page H9695]]
waste, and those people are standing up and saying that it is our moral
responsibility to come up with solutions, and the solution is not an
interim storage facility out in Nevada. The reason, and one of the
reasons that these environmental groups oppose this bill is because we
have not determined what the risks are. We have not determined what the
costs are going to be. As the GAO does new studies and finds out that,
first of all, Yucca Mountain is much more expensive than anybody ever
thought before, and it seems like every year they come out with new
studies that say Yucca Mountain is much more expensive, the same thing
with interim storage. If you actually do the cost-benefit analysis and
risk assessment, when you start taking into account, there was a case
in New Mexico where radioactive waste was transported by a person's
property, that person was awarded by the court and upheld by the State
Supreme Court of New Mexico that that was considered a takings and that
person had to be compensated for the loss because of the perceived loss
of valuation of that person's land.
As we are transporting nuclear waste, the most deadly substance known
to mankind, across 43 States, across all kinds of people's property,
let us say that you have a very nice, beautiful piece of property that
is a resort. Now you have got nuclear waste being transported by it. It
could very well be argued, especially viewing what happened in Germany
where they had 30,000 police officers being required to transport
nuclear waste, just 6 casks, by the way, of nuclear waste, just 6,300
miles to the north, 173 people were injured.
People are trying to say that private property is not going to be
devalued by nuclear waste being transported by it? And especially this
bill says that you have to give local notice. We know that as you give
local notice, that people are going to come out in this country and
protest the shipment of this waste. Land is going to be devalued. So we
do not even know how much this is actually going to cost because of
that.
By the way, the taxpayer ends up holding the bill on this. It is
under our Constitution, if the Federal Government based on the Fifth
Amendment does devalue somebody's land, it is going to be the taxpayer
that ends up holding the bill on this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
opposition to the amendment. A lot has been said about this being an
amendment to add risk assessment into the legislation, but properly
understood, it really should be called the additional regulatory
bureaucracy and delay amendment. It is very clear from the debate we
have had here already that the action required by this amendment would
be to force the Department of Energy to undertake a risk assessment
before it takes any action under this act. And since the amendment does
not define which DOE actions require a risk assessment, each action
would probably end up requiring such a risk assessment.
We have heard discussion about whether there is unreasonable risk
involved in this entire process. I think that the proponents of the
amendment and the opponents of the bill would have Members believe that
we are simply transporting nuclear fuel around the country without any
evaluation of risk standards or that we are evaluating the sites
without consideration of environmental harm or risk or other
considerations. The fact of the matter is just the opposite.
As I said in my earlier debate, the regulatory regime for radioactive
material transport has been very heavily evaluated. It focuses on risk
extremely aggressively and has an absolutely perfect safety record. I
went through that information previously but over the last 30 years, we
have had 2500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel in the United States;
since 1957, 667 shipments of Navy fuel, over a million miles of travel,
and in the last 22 years the Department of Energy under these programs
has transported nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials nearly
100 million miles. All of this has occurred without a radioactive
release. Those who would have Members believe that risk is not
carefully evaluated, monitored and regulated in our current nuclear
regime in the United States are misstating the reality. The fact is
that we will have adequate protections both environmentally and in
terms of the risk, and there is no reason why we should not proceed
with the legislation that is now before us to solve this critical issue
to this country.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is what is expedient, how
do we get the job done, and how do we make sure it is done safely?
Before we ever start to cross the threshold on this whole issue, there
has to be an environmental impact study. That is in place. It is being
done. What this amendment asks us to do is to every time that there is
any action at all dealing with this, there has to be an impact study
done, that there has to be a financial research study done.
If we want to give $2500 to the Mayville, Ohio fire department to
beef up their education, there has to be a financial impact study done.
If we want to help railroad employees do safety inspections and we
decide to do that, that is an action. And so whenever one of these
actions happens, you stop the whole process until the financial impact
statement has been done, which might be a whole period of time, and you
take instead of the whole gestalt, the whole issue, you divide it into
millions of little pieces and you stop that action every time you turn
around.
I understand that the proponents of this amendment would like to slow
the action down. They would like to stop this from happening. They
would like us to stop solving the problem of safe storage for nuclear
waste in this country. But this amendment that brings this thing down
to a death of a thousand cuts just will not work.
We need to pass this legislation, we need to do it safely, we need to
do the environmental impact statements, we need to do the overall
financial statements, but we cannot stop the process a million and 10
times that this amendment asks for. We need to reject this amendment
and move forward.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The Chair would advise that
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer] has 2 minutes remaining
and the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, who has
the right to close on this amendment?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has the right
to close.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to have a cost-
benefit analysis. We are embarking on one of the most dramatic changes
in nuclear policy that has ever been conducted in the history of the
world. There are going to be 15,000 shipments by rail and highway of
radioactive waste through 43 States and the District of Columbia.
Hundreds of cities are involved across America's heartland. If nuclear
waste is privatized as some are proposing, far more of the waste
traffic would go by truck. It is estimated there would be 79,300 truck
shipments, 12,600 rail shipments. We ought to evaluate this, we ought
to look at the cost-benefit as it affects every community in this
country.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The government's own scientists at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board said that there is no hurry, that we do not need to do this now.
There is time to do a cost-benefit analysis.
{time} 1930
We are not running out of space, there is plenty of space. All you
have to do is build cement pads at the nuclear facilities with dry cast
storage. The NRC has said that is good for 100 years.
It has been mentioned we have not had an accident yet. Mr. Chairman,
I am from Las Vegas. We go on odds in Las Vegas. With 100 miles or
whatever they said that have been traveled so far with no accidents,
the odds are, one is coming. All you have to do is see how many train
wrecks we have had in the last several years. Imagine what one of
[[Page H9696]]
those train wrecks would do if the people that have done some of the
early studies were wrong on these canisters.
We are not talking about a small risk here; we are talking about
major environmental safety hazards. I think a reasonable cost-benefit
risk assessment is very justified. I would urge a yes vote on this
amendment.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman. I yield two minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the author of the bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues what
this bill does is it gets it out of these temporary storage places that
are along the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay and rivers and streams
and into one safe place. We have had a perfect record of transporting
this stuff. It was not mined in the dunes of Lake Michigan. It had to
get there somehow. It got there in a perfect way, without a single
incident of exposure or release of radioactive material. We think that
that can continue as we get it out of the dunes and off of the shores
of these environmentally sensitive areas to one safe place.
I just want to close on this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
no. The result of this amendment is pointless delay. I want to give one
example.
The amendment would require the Department of Energy to perform a
risk assessment before it provided funds to emergency response teams
for public safety training. It is redundant. We do not need a risk
assessment for items like that, and this amendment, if it was adopted,
would require that every action would require a risk assessment.
It is too much. We do not need it. The bill is designed to be safe in
the transportation of this material. It will be so.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
The question was taken, and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it
Recorded Vote
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider an Amendment No. 5 printed in House
Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Gibbons
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Gibbons:
Page 19, insert after line 16 the following:
``(e) Emergency Response Team.--The Secretary may not plan
for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste through any State unless the Governor of
such State can certify that an adequate emergency response
team exists in such State to appropriately manage any nuclear
accident that may occur in such transportation.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] and a Member opposed will each
control 10 minutes.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan
Schaefer will be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states that the Governor of each
State with nuclear waste routes shall certify that emergency response
teams exist and can properly manage any nuclear accident before
transportation plans can be implemented by the Secretary.
Governors of States faced with the mandate of accepting highly
dangerous irradiated nuclear waste in their State should be given the
legal authority to ensure that an emergency response team is adequately
prepared to protect the health and safety of those citizens.
A Department of Energy report estimated that a radioactive accident
could take up to 460 days and cost up to $19.4 billion to clean up. No
State can afford the economic consequences of a disaster of this
magnitude. Realizing that, these costs cannot include the intangible
loss of life that could also occur.
Without the passage of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, Governors' voices
will be stifled in the oversight of transportation of nuclear waste.
Many people feel as I do, that this is an infringement on States'
rights. Every State should have the legal authority to make sure their
citizenry is safe, and it is the job of that Governor to ensure that
all possible remedies are used to ensure that.
If a nuclear accident did occur, those first to respond to the
disaster must be adequately trained. Local firefighters and police
officers will be the first to respond to nuclear truck or train
accidents.
The International Association of Fire Fighters stated in a letter
that the International Association of Fire Fighters represents more
than 225,000 emergency responders, who are the Nation's first line of
defense during any hazardous material incident, including the
transportation of highly radioactive material. Without adequate
training, it is easy to see why they are opposing this bill.
It is the responsibility of the Governor of these States to uphold
their States' constitution and protect the health and safety of its
citizenry. How can any Governor expect to protect their States, their
constituents, as well as the firefighters and the policemen, without
the legal authority granted under this amendment?
H.R. 1270, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, would mandate that
nuclear waste be shipped through 43 States, regardless if consent is
granted by these States or not.
It is a simple issue of States' rights and public safety. If this
body wishes to pass H.R. 1270, then I feel it is our obligation, an
obligation that most of us, if not all on this side of the aisle, have
stated for a long time, an obligation to return power to the States and
allow them every opportunity to protect themselves from the deadly
mandate under H.R. 1270 and this Congress.
Every State should be prepared to handle a nuclear accident before it
happens, not after the deadly contents spill upon the ground. I would
ask Members to trust their Governors, their State, and especially their
constituency, to support State rights and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the author of the bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would note that this Gibbons amendment
would bar the Department of Energy from planning for the transportation
of spent nuclear fuel or high level radioactive waste through any State
unless the Governor of the State certified that an adequate emergency
response team existed in the State.
This, in a sense, would give every Governor a veto over nuclear waste
transportation through their State. All that the Governor would have to
do is to refuse to certify that their State has adequate emergency
response teams, and that is it. That is it. A killer amendment.
The temptation would be irresistible to perhaps the Governor of
Nevada, because no matter how adequately trained their emergency
response team might be, the Governor would just say, no.
I would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I would note
that in the deliberations in the markup before our full committee, the
gentlewoman from Missouri, Karen McCarthy, a respected Member, wanted
to offer an amendment. We worked with her, it was included, in fact, in
the manager's amendment, and it directed that the Secretary of
Transportation would, in fact, establish procedures for the selection
of preferred railroad routes for transportation of nuclear waste to an
interim storage facility and repository, and DOT would be directed to
consult with State emergency response officials in the development of
these preferred routes.
That means that there is local input. The Governors and the States
are
[[Page H9697]]
going to be involved. Thanks to the input of the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], that amendment has been adopted as part of
this bill, and, therefore, there is no need for the Gibbons amendment.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
this.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me State we are not just simply
picking this stuff up and placing it down here without any
transportation occurring throughout the course of 43 different States.
It is not irresponsible for Governors to want to work and present and
protect the safety of their citizens. I think it is irresponsible of a
Governor who does not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, this is clearly about States' rights and the tenth
amendment. This is not a national security issue, as some people have
said it was. We have had nuclear waste at these facilities for decades.
If it was a national security issue now, it would certainly have been a
national security issue then, and it will be in the future then,
because we are not taking all the nuclear waste from these facilities.
It will continue to exist in the district of the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton], in the district of the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Hastert], and on and on. Nuclear waste will still be in their
districts. They will not have as much of it, but they will have it.
What the amendment of the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] does is
says that the Governor, who is the closest representative to a State
and is aware of what is happening in their State and knows best, would
say that these emergency response teams have to exist and be properly
trained before nuclear waste can come through their State.
What representative here in Congress would not want their Governor to
have to say, yes, the emergency response teams are in place? Now you
can bring the waste through our State. But until that Governor says
that these emergency response teams are in place and are trained
properly, no nuclear waste can come through my State if I was a
Governor. I would certainly want that right if I was a Governor, and I
know virtually every Governor across this country would want that right
as well.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Secretary from taking
any, any, significant action to prepare for the transportation of this
nuclear fuel through the State, if the Governor, any Governor of the
State, refused to certify that ``an adequate emergency response team
exists.''
In the first place, the amendment is not necessary for safe
transportation, because the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as
the gentleman from Ohio pointed out, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations, apply to all shipments of spent fuel and high
level radioactive waste. That, and the consulting provisions of H.R.
1270, provide the Governor of each State with an opportunity to
designate.
A Governor can designate the alternate transportation routes, but
they do not give the Governor the authority to prohibit the interstate
transportation of materials through a State as this amendment would do.
This amendment would kill that.
Now, in reality, the amendment would bring the entire nuclear program
to a halt by giving any Governor the right to veto transportation
through their State. I think their Governor, I think it is Governor
Miller, has indicated he would do almost anything to prevent this from
happening. I do not blame him. I would take the same position he has
taken. But this gives him the same position as any Governor. He is a
Governor, and any Governor can do it. This gives them a veto.
First, I would point out that nuclear energy has been around a long,
long time. The first plant came on in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, back
in 1961. From that day to this date shipping is obvious. You have to
ship it. It has to go somewhere. It has to be transported.
Then if that happens, we have to look and see what the safety record
has been to date. During the last 30 years, commercial nuclear energy
has built an impeccable safety record of more than 2,900 shipments of
used fuel across the U.S. highways and railroads, and in that time, no
injuries, no fatalities, no environmental damage has occurred, because
of the radioactivity of the cargo. In fact, there has been no release
of radioactivity during these shipments; 2,900 shipments, shipments of
commercial used nuclear fuel and research reactor fuel, have traveled
more than 1.6 million miles across the country's highways and rail
lines since 1964, according to the data from the NRC, the State of
Nevada, and from the industry.
This is not needed, and I certainly urge that it be defeated.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and
friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gibbons
amendment. The commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States
is not a vehicle to endanger the rights of States, but to facilitate
the rights of the Union respecting the States.
There is no respect for the States when we decide to ship millions of
tons of nuclear waste through 43 States without giving the States a
strong voice in the process.
The Governors are ultimately responsible for the safety of
populations within the State. Just today the Subcommittee on Government
Operations urged that the protection of gulf war veterans, the
responsibility for that protection, be taken away from two major
Federal departments because those departments were lax in protecting
the gulf war veterans who experienced the gulf war syndrome.
{time} 1945
States ought to take pause when the safety and protection of their
population rests solely on one Federal department which must be
responsive first to the nuclear industries, and then perhaps to the
civilian population.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote for the Gibbons amendment.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that when we look at amendments we
have to say, what is the reason this amendment exists? Why do people
want to put it in?
It is very simple. If one wanted to stop nuclear waste and high-level
military waste from moving across this country, as it has for scores of
millions of miles, for decades across this country, safely, then one
would say we would give the ability for an individual in a State, in
this case the Governor, just to veto this and say ``You cannot move
this through my State anymore.''
Especially if one wanted to stop nuclear waste from going to a
permanent repository or a temporary repository, one would give the
Governor the ability, the Governor of that State or of other States, to
say, ``I am going to veto this,'' regardless of the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation, the plans they have for safe
transportation, and the Department of Energy, despite the plans they
have for safe storage of high-level nuclear waste, regardless of what
those plans are.
But one of the things that I think the author of this amendment
forgot to look at is the constitutionality. One of the things that we
have guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States is the ability
for interstate trade, and the movement and transportation of trade
across the borders of States not to be inhibited by any one State or
any one person in a State.
This amendment, to my view, is clearly unconstitutional. What it
really does is give the veto power to States and individuals in States
to stop interstate commerce, something that is guaranteed in the
Constitution.
But beyond that, it also is a way just to stop the process, not to
stop the process just for the storage of nuclear waste that this bill
tries to move us to, a safe storage of nuclear waste, but of all the
movement of military waste, of domestic waste that we have in this
country today.
[[Page H9698]]
That means we cannot move it anywhere, we cannot move it off the
ships, we cannot move it off of any repositories we have, we cannot
move it to safer places. So the only alternative left is to have this
nuclear waste stack up in the open, out in the elements, near some of
our most important natural resources, the Great Lakes, for instance, in
Michigan and other places, and to be exposed to the elements. That is
not the best and highest purpose that we have to move forward on to
store high-level nuclear waste. It was never the intent.
We have to remember that the Federal Government had made a contract
with the American people in 1982 that they would take this nuclear
waste and store it in a safe way, and when we say store it, we also
have to assume it is transportation in a safe manner. We need to move
forward and reject this amendment.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am a very strong believer in Thomas Jefferson's
belief in States' rights, the rights of States to assert their
legitimate authority over that which takes place in their domain.
I hate it when I see Members of Congress out trampling on an
individual State's ability to act, on a Governor's right to protect a
State's own citizens, especially when we are told that we do not even
have to make the truck drivers liable because it is so safe. They
cannot even have an accident if they tried. It is in containers that
cannot break, so we are told. Well, as a result, we are going to
suspend the Governor's right to be able to ask a few questions, but it
is over a subject that they are telling us is absolutely harmless.
Again, I think if Thomas Jefferson were here, he would be very
suspicious of a central government telling the State to trust us, we
are sending through cannisters of highly dangerous materials, but they
do not have to worry because the central government has taken care of
them. That is where I think Alexander Hamilton was always questioned by
Thomas Jefferson. I hate to see it when Members are out usurping the
legitimate right of Governors on this kind of a matter.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Members for allowing me to present
my argument on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I notice my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois,
talks about the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause regulates commerce
among the several States, but it is the 10th Amendment which reserves
those powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Government to the
States themselves and to the people.
It is the health and safety of the people of those States through
which this transport of hazardous nuclear waste material is going to
take place. Those Governors have the right, notwithstanding any other
arguments that I have heard here before, to regulate and ask that the
safety of their constituents be protected.
Let me also say something my mother said to me, that ``If you fail to
prepare, you are preparing to fail.'' Governors across this Nation
should prepare their response teams for the inevitable accident of
nuclear waste.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this, support this in
the name of safety, support this in the name of States' rights.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this can turn into a political issue very, very rapidly
when a Governor of a particular State has to make the decision on
whether or not they are going to allow the transport of this across
State lines.
I guess the one concern that I have on this is that every one of
these Governors politically are going to say, hey, no way, and we will
end up leaving the waste in the 35 States or 38 States that it is in
today. So I would just say I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons]
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in the House
report 105-354.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ensign
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ensign:
Page 19, insert after line 16 the following:
``(c) Emergency Response.--The Secretary may not plan for
the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste in a fiscal year for which funds
appropriated under section 203(c) are insufficient (as
determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) to
ensure adequate and trained emergency response teams along
all the transportation routes to be used in such fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, will
control 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, before I go on to talk about this amendment, which
deals with safety, I want to talk about the comment that the
subcommittee chairman made on the last amendment when he said that,
well, of course, if the Governors had their choice, every one of them
would oppose nuclear waste being transported across their State and
they would stop it. He said every Governor. He may want to retract that
statement, but he said every Governor. Does it not make sense that we
would oppose a bill if every Governor in every State does not want
nuclear waste being transported across their State?
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, and this amendment would simply
require certification by FEMA, and by the way, this is an independent
agency, that adequate appropriations, in other words, monies be
appropriated to exist for the emergency response teams that are going
to be necessary across those 43 States if an accident did occur.
Local fire and police departments will be the first ones on the scene
of a nuclear waste accident, and it is vitally important that these
forces are mobilized and trained in responding to possible radiation
leaks. H.R. 1270 authorizes funding for these purposes, but makes that
funding contingent upon actions of the Committee on Appropriations.
This year, for an example, the energy and water appropriations bill
provided $2.6 billion less than the administration's request for
programs that are ongoing. The money simply is not there. But we need
to ensure that if that money is not provided, that we do not undertake
activities when we have not adequately prepared to deal with the
consequences of those activities.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely outrageous that we would not
simply make sure that the money is there, that adequate money is there;
not to be appropriated, but actually there, mandated that we spend to
make sure that the transport of the deadliest substance known to
mankind, if an accident occurs, that those response teams have the
adequate funding that they can prepare to meet the type of accident
that could ensue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment bars the Department of Energy
from planning for nuclear waste transportation in any fiscal year in
which funds are deemed to be insufficient by the Federal Energy
Management Agency to ensure adequate and trained emergency response
teams along all the transportation routes to be used in each such
fiscal year.
[[Page H9699]]
On its face this sounds like a good idea, but when we look at it, it
is another amendment designed to prevent transportation of nuclear
waste. It is going to create a circumstance in which, instead of
addressing this issue once and for all, we create now yet again another
regulatory mechanism, where every year we have to fight in this
Congress over whether we are going to have in place the necessary
structure to move ahead with transporting the spent nuclear fuel of
this country to permanent storage.
This amendment would prevent the Department of Energy from beginning
to accept nuclear waste in the year 2002. Last year a Federal court
said that the United States has a legal obligation to begin acceptance
of nuclear waste in the year 1998. H.R. 1270 provides for that
acceptance at least by the year 2002.
This amendment would delay the beginning of that acceptance for
years. In addition, once FEMA was able to make determinations as
required by this amendment, opponents of the nuclear waste program
would seek annually to cut funding for emergency response training or
to otherwise argue that the funding simply was not sufficient, and if
that was not enough, they would try to work through regulatory routes
to get FEMA to simply say they were not ready.
If their efforts were successful, nuclear transportation would be
blocked for another entire year, year after year, as the process of
debate moved forward. This amendment is designed to create yet one more
venue where we debate endlessly the question of how will we deal with
spent nuclear fuel in this country. It is not designed to improve
training of emergency response teams or promote that safe
transportation; it is designed to keep nuclear waste where it now is,
spread out across the country in scores of sites in 35 or more States.
We have, as we have discussed repeatedly tonight, a safe
transportation system. If we need more safety, we can appropriate the
necessary dollars to do so. I do not believe there would be much
objection to appropriating for strengthened and increased training in
FEMA. But we do not need to fall for the trick of tying that FEMA
funding to the ability of the Department of Energy to transport the
spent nuclear fuel in this country as is necessary for the security and
safety of our Nation.
{time} 2000
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that
we are more concerned about people's lives, where they are more
concerned about the process that goes on here in the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, it seems that we have been called a lot of
things this evening, especially obstructionists. Well, I think those
people who are opposing these amendments are the obstructionists.
What we are talking about here is response team funding, paying money
out to save people's lives, human lives. The health of humanity, the
environment is at risk here. The safety of the citizens is a
responsibility of the Governors in these 43 States through which this
material is going to be transported. They need the resources to make
sure that we are doing this safely in the event of that actuality of an
accident that is bound to happen.
By the way, let me also take a little time here to talk a little bit
about ``Indiana Michigan Power versus DOE.'' I want to dispel these
myths about the law as it now stands. It does not require the Federal
Government to take into possession this nuclear material. It says that
in the event of an unavoidable delay, in the event of an unavoidable
delay, the parties are to readjust schedules as appropriate to
accommodate the delay. It does not mandate that the Federal Government
take possession of this in 1998. It does nothing that all of this
hyperbole that we hear from the opponents of this amendment say. This
case literally does not require the Federal Government to take
possession of that.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign] took some of his time to answer the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], let me answer something the gentleman from
Nevada said a little bit ago.
Mr. Chairman, I do not consider them obstructionists, and we are
trying not to be. The gentleman mentioned that they play the odds in
Las Vegas. I have been to Las Vegas. The last time I was out there I
saw a dejected fellow sitting over there. He lost all of his money and
he could not borrow any more money and he could not cash any checks,
but the management was kind out there and they offered him some food.
And he said, ``No, I can't do that. My bus will be here in a few
minutes.'' And they said, ``Oh, you have to catch the bus?'' And he
said, ``No, I'm going to get in front of it.''
Mr. Chairman, that is what we would do if this amendment passed.
Because whereas the other amendment said that any Governor could veto
it, this sets out that a bureaucrat can veto it. They are going to let
FERC veto it. That is of course outrageous.
H.R. 1270 provides already for technical assistance and funding to
the States, to the effected units of local governments, Indian tribes
and nonprofit organizations for the training of local public safety
officials.
The amendment would give the Director of FEMA complete discretion
over whether this act is implemented. I just do not think we want to do
that. It would be an illegal delegation of power. It is not a good
idea. We do not want to leave it up to the bureaucrats.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if it is so very safe to ship these
materials under the legal regime which has been established under this
bill, then the sponsors should not have any problems with this
amendment. All we really do here is say if FEMA determines that there
is insufficient funds that have been appropriated for emergency
response teams, then we have to basically deal with that issue.
But we have reached a point here now where we are saying we have got
an unfunded mandate where we are not going to help out the State or the
local municipality in dealing with this issue. We are telling the
Governors they do not have any authority here to deal with it. And now
we are turning to the FEMA and we are saying that this very safe
material is stuff that we do not even want FEMA to have to certify that
they have enough money to be able to handle it.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the proponents of this bill do protesteth
too much about how safe it is while at the same time telling Governors,
mayors, FEMA to butt out in terms of questioning, in fact, the real
protections given to the public.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues that this
is a duplicative amendment. Under the existing law and this bill, H.R.
1270, DOE provides funding from the income under this program to
provide emergency response training for State and local entities in the
unlikely event of an accident with radioactive materials.
Under the funding, the DOE already provides assistance for training
of State and local officials and tribal emergency rescue workers. The
commercial nuclear safe record during 2,900 shipments speak to the
effectiveness of the training.
I remind my colleagues that this radioactive material did not just
show up at these 80 different facilities around the country. It had to
get there. And some 1,300 tons of the radioactive rods were shipped
without accident, without spillage, without a single release of nuclear
material, all under the safe guidance of the Department of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, to change that record and give it to somebody else and
let them start all over and do their regulations is just further delay.
I would urge my colleagues: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The
system works now under the guidance of the Department of Energy, and I
have a feeling of confidence that it will continue without this
amendment.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
There
[[Page H9700]]
are a number of assumptions that are being made here in this debate. I
recall the remarks of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] about betting
in Las Vegas. We are betting that radioactive waste cannot spill. We
are betting that trucks carrying the radioactive waste will not have
accidents. We are betting that trains which carry the radioactive waste
will not derail. We are betting that the casks which contain the
radioactive waste transported will not break, will not come open or
leak.
But that has a familiar ring. It sounds like the Titanic will not
sink. The Hindenburg will not fall out of the sky. Or if my colleagues
want a modern reference, that Three Mile Island will never have an
accident.
Mr. Chairman, I would say, again referring to the remarks of the
gentleman from Texas, that we might have better odds of getting out in
front of that bus than we may have of there not being any accident.
So safety is an issue. Let us keep focused on this safety issue which
is implicit in this amendment. The bill would send an estimated 100,000
shipments of high-level radioactive waste through 43 States, passing 50
million people in their communities. At the very least, we need to
ensure there are safeguards in place and that means money to train
emergency response teams along the transportation routes. And if there
is not enough money, appropriate it to ensure that adequate response
teams are in place along the waste transportation route.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy ought not be prohibited from
planning for the transportation of this radioactive waste.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I remember when I was a kid the old
western movies were out there. My mother never told me much about
nuclear waste, but we used to watch the western movies. And if they had
to stop the train that had the stuff in it from getting to the good
guys, first of all they sent the Indians after it. We have to confer
with the Indians. We passed that amendment tonight. Then they switched
it off on the spur so it cannot go down the track. Well, we can do
that. But really the question is here how many bureaucracies do we have
to have to stop nuclear waste from getting to a place of safe storage?
Well, Mr. Chairman, we have the Department of Defense, first of all,
that has some of this nuclear waste. They are involved in this thing.
We have DOE, Department of Energy, who prescribes the safe way to
transport this, to bundle it, to package it, to store it. And then we
also have the Department of Transportation.
Now, I understand that the sponsors of this amendment certainly would
like to stop nuclear waste from going to a safe destination where we
can have a final resting place for this stuff that is stored in scores
of States and scores of places, in people's backyards, backyards in our
communities next to natural resources. We need to find a safe place to
do it.
But if they are going to stop that from happening, what they really
do here is say, well, let us let FEMA do this now. Mr. Chairman, FEMA
has never had any experience in nuclear waste. They are not an agency
that deals with transportation of nuclear waste, but we are going to
say that FEMA now has the ability to do this and has to put together
rules and has to put together a whole process and, by the way, that is
going to be a couple of years so we cannot even begin to plan to move
nuclear waste in this country until we have another bureaucracy
involved.
Mr. Chairman, we might as well bring in the Indians and try to switch
this thing off onto the dead track. We need to defeat this amendment
and move on.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here is really just a safety
issue, just to make sure that there is a comfort level for the people
in America.
The authors of the bill have even said this is unnecessary because
this bill authorizes the monies for these emergency response teams. All
we are saying is, and I have only been here almost 3 years, and even in
that very short period of time I have seen bills that are authorized
for certain amount of money. Does the Highway Trust Fund sound familiar
to anybody? Authorized for a certain amount of money and then that
money not being spent. The trust fund that we are talking about here,
does that sound familiar to my colleagues?
Well, what we are saying is that we want to make sure that the money
is not just authorized; that the money actually gets to those emergency
response teams so that if there is an accident, that the people are
adequately trained and can handle this.
We have been lucky in this country. We have not had the kind of
nuclear disaster from an accident that all of us would never want to
happen. But if it does happen, would any of us want to face the parents
of a child that was killed in one of these accidents? Was exposed to
some kind of radiation that ended up at that point leading to cancer or
to certain death?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the very least we can do for those
people is to make sure that if an accident does occur, that the people
in the surrounding areas have the comfort level that their emergency
response teams are in place and have been well-trained because the
monies from this Congress, and this Congress is the one who is doing
all of this. It is not the States out there. This Congress is the one
transporting this waste, authorizing the transport of this waste.
So this Congress should take the responsibility to make sure that the
money is appropriated, the money is adequately appropriated, not just
authorized but adequately appropriated, that these emergency response
teams would be in place. To do anything less would be a dereliction of
our moral duty to our constituents all across these United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 36, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 9
on page 39.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan
Schaefer] will each control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
{time} 2015
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is one thing when they tell us, as proponents of
this legislation, that we really do not have to be concerned about it
traveling down the highway and we really do not have to give any
authority to local mayors or Governors, even the FEMA, to be able to
properly protect public safety. But it is another thing, Mr. Chairman,
when the Congress determines that a human being can be exposed to 100
millirems of radiation at this site with no health consequences for the
individual.
In other countries in the world, they have much different standards
than are built into this bill. In Canada, it is one millirem a year. In
Finland and Switzerland, it is 10 millirems a year. In France, it is 25
millirems a year. But here the Congress is going to decide that
pregnant women, children can be exposed to 100 millirems a year, even
though we know that at that level, one in 286 people exposed to that
level of
[[Page H9701]]
radiation will, in fact, contract fatal cancer.
Now, I can understand how we can pretend that the canisters cannot
break. I can understand how we can pretend that the driver will never
get drunk. But we cannot pretend that science does not exist. We cannot
pretend that the National Academy of Sciences does not exist. And we
cannot pretend to be experts. A congressional expert is an oxymoron. We
are only experts compared to each other. We are not experts compared to
real experts, radiation experts, medical people.
Where do we get off picking 100 millirems knowing that one in 286
people exposed will in fact contract fatal cancer? By the way, this 100
millirems is on top of all of the other radiation exposure that a human
being is exposed to in the course of a year. It is absolutely
unbelievable.
Now, the second part of my amendment deals with the absolutely, I
think, preposterous leap that there can be no human intrusion at Yucca
Mountain for 1,000 years. That is, by assuming that, we do not have to
build in any extra environmental protections. Now, we have no idea if
some nuclear Indiana Jones nine centuries from now might be wandering
around some desolate location in Nevada not knowing what went on back
in the Congress in 1997. And perhaps we have not left behind some
nuclear Rosetta stone, because perhaps English is not being spoken in
that part of the world at that time, and they come across this site.
Well, this bill assumes that Indiana Jones cannot break in, cannot
wander in with their entire tribe and be exposed to this incredible
blast of radiation that will hit them as soon as they crack through.
All of it, of course, contributing to the ridiculous final picture of
what is being sold out here on the floor, is just an attempt to run
roughshod over EPA, over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, over the
FEMA, over Governors, over mayors, over selectmen, over individual
Americans and over unsuspecting-centuries-from-now individuals that
might run across this site.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, for this amendment to be adopted. My amendment
restores the EPA as an agency which will have to establish the minimal
radiation exposure for human beings at this site. My amendment pulls
back the assumption that no human intrusion is possible and, as a
result, says we have got to build in protections upon the assumption
that it just might happen at some time.
We are burying this for 10,000 years, longer than all recorded
history to this moment. And this Congress is sitting around in
committees making decisions about how much protection we are going to
be giving to people centuries from now. I do not think so. I do not
think we have that kind of wisdom, congressional experts that we may
be.
So I ask that the Markey amendment be adopted for the protection near
term of the women, the children, the men who are going to be exposed to
the millirems in the construction of this site and working around this
site, and I ask that it be adopted for future generations as they may
be exposed unwittingly to this facility.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, once again we are debating another amendment
which clearly is going to stop the purpose of the bill from moving
forward.
H.R. 1270 establishes a presumptive radiation protection standard of
100 millirems or 1/3 background levels. This standard was not chosen
arbitrarily, as those who support the amendment seem to suggest.
Instead it reflects the judgment of the International Council for
Radiation Protection and is the standard that has been adopted by the
NRC in its regulations for general public protection.
H.R. 1270 further allows NRC to amend the radiation standard if they
deem it necessary for the protection of public health and safety. And
it is the NRC, not the EPA, that is the agency with expertise on
radiation. NRC has concluded that the standard in H.R. 1270, and I
quote, will fully protect public health and safety and the environment.
And H.R. 1270 requires the NRC to consult with the EPA.
But another point needs to be made. That is, this bill does not set a
standard out of just the desire for Congress to move ahead on this. It
sets it out of frustration with inaction by the EPA. In 1982, the EPA
was directed to promulgate these standards. It failed to do so.
Fifteen years later it has not established such a standard. In 1992,
the EPA was directed to establish standards for radiation releases and
still after entering into a science study and getting the results of
that study in 1995, it has not issued those standards.
Continued inaction by the EPA should not be allowed to block us from
moving forward.
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] often states that the
radiation standard in H.R. 1270 will cause cancer deaths. The fact is,
however, that two years ago the NRC told the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] that the radiation standard in H.R. 1270
would protect human health.
On July 13, 1995, the NRC wrote to him and told him that this
radiation standard will likely cause zero cancer deaths. In the letter
the NRC stated that there would only be cancer deaths if a population
of 1,400 people lived on top of the repository for 70 years. And Yucca
Mountain, as we know, has been withdrawn into this bill and is very
sparsely populated.
The fact is that the average American is exposed to 300 millirems of
natural radiation per year. This standard is safe. The agencies
involved have declared it to be safe. And if it needs to be adjusted,
it can be adjusted.
What about the issue of human intrusion? The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] made a good point. He speculated, I think
with a little smile on his face, about what extreme circumstances we
could hypothesize that could happen in the future. I guess we could
hypothesize that the entire earth population would be obliterated by
some tragedy, that we would lose all ability to communicate or
understand what had happened, and that someone would then go to Yucca
Mountain and drill down through the core of the earth into the facility
and cause a release.
It is exactly that type of speculation that has caused the National
Academy of Sciences to say that reaching a conclusion on these types of
assumptions is not possible in terms of predicting human behavior
thousands of years into the future, and to say that for that reason it
is hardly surprising that Congress would seek a resolution of these
issues so that the EPA and that those conducting the studies do not
have to go on with endless speculation about these types of activities,
can make sensible, common sense analysis and move forward in a common
sense way rather than going on with these irrational ideas about
speculating about such highly remote possibilities. Those are the
issues we are facing in this amendment. It is one more attempt to
derail this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan
Schaefer] has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I think he hit the nuclear highlight right on the head today with
setting the standards. The standards were set not by scientists, not by
doctors who understand radioactive materials, but rather the
Congressmen and women, sitting on the Committee on Commerce,
established a bill with these radioactive standards in it.
Let me tell my colleagues what the standard really talks about here.
We are talking about 100 millirems. The standard is clearly far above
any other standard established in the law today; that was clearly
pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey].
Let me tell Members a little more about nuclear radiation and what
one of these nuclear irradiated rods means to us.
Now, if you are a person standing one yard away from an unshielded
10-year-old nuclear rod assembly, you would get a lethal dose; that is,
a deadly dose of radiation, 500 rems in less than 3 minutes, less than
3 minutes. A 30-second exposure at 100 rems, which is the
[[Page H9702]]
proposed standard that they have established, a 30-second exposure at
the same distance at 100 rems would significantly increase the risk of
cancer or genetic damage.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about significant human risk, human life
and the establishment of a new standard that was not set by scientific
evaluation. It was set by the people on the Committee on Commerce. That
is wrong. Vote for the Markey amendment.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to leave my friend from
Massachusetts' comments unresponded to with regard to the thousand
years. Here is what it looks like. Looks like the moon.
I would like to propose that we might get a unanimous consent
amendment to put a statue of Ed Markey out in front with some of the
speeches that he has delivered. I can guarantee my colleagues that no
one will be close to this thing for 2,000 years, let alone 1,000, and
we will not need the Park Service to build a $330,000 commode for 950
years from now. I wonder if the gentleman would object to such a
unanimous consent amendment?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if it is facing the Upton statue, I would
be more than willing.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know
anything about statues, but I do not know anybody that runs roughshod
over the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. He stands his
ground pretty well. Sometimes I agree with him; usually I do not. But I
always respect him and admire him.
This amendment would strike H.R. 1270 provisions that limit the
Environmental Protection Agency from setting radiation protection
standards. Well, for them to set it, we charged EPA 15 years ago to
develop a radiation standard for a Federal repository. They have yet to
do so. I do not see any reason to ask them or to even seek their
opinion, but it is asked.
EPA is involved in the standard setting practice by advising the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And if the NRC believes a stricter
standard is required to protect health and safety, the bill authorizes
the commission to develop a stricter standard. So it gives more
standards and more strictness to the bill.
NRC has testified before the Committee on Commerce and let me talk
about that. Did we run roughshod over them? Listen to the testimony of
Shirley Ann Jackson, NRC Chairman, April 29, 1997 in testimony
regarding H.R. 1270 before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
``The Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes the standard in H.R. 1270
of an annual effective dose of 100 millirems to the average member of
the general population in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain and views that
standard as consistent with the protection of the public health and
safety.''
Not roughshod. What happened in the Committee on Commerce? We had
this identical, I believe it was identical amendment in the Committee
on Commerce about a month ago. It was voted down at least 2 to 1. This
committee voted on this bill just recently, less than a month ago. They
voted 43 to 3 for the standard that is in this bill.
{time} 2030
I think it is obvious that this is an amendment that should be
defeated, and I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has 3
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, Lincoln is often quoted as saying, ``A
government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not
perish from this earth.'' Well, neither will radioactive waste.
If an accident should occur that exposes the public to spent nuclear
fuel, the results could be deadly. A person standing one yard away from
an unshielded 10-year-old fuel assembly could receive a lethal dose of
radiation in less than 3 minutes, and exposure of only 30 seconds would
significantly increase the risk of cancer or genetic damage. So the
public ought to be fully informed of such risks.
The bill sets a standard which allows an annual radiation dose of 100
millirems per average member of the surrounding population, which is 4
times the amount allowed by current regulations for storage facilities.
This exposure level is associated with the lifetime risk of one excess
cancer death for every 286 exposed individuals.
If the population local to the interim dump site is to be exposed to
this increased health risk, then they should be protected in every
possible way.
I say support the Markey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has 2
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] for yielding.
We have heard that the NRC says that 100 millirems is fine. But also,
remember, I am from the State of Nevada. Remember what the Federal
Government said back in the 1950s. They said above-ground nuclear
tests, atmospheric tests, are safe. As a matter of fact, if we go out
to the Nevada test site, we will see where the bleachers used to be
where people used to put on, basically, these glasses with little slits
in them and they used to watch above-ground nuclear, atmospheric
nuclear tests. Ask the people in southern Utah if they trust the
Federal Government to be setting a standard like this.
We are raising the standard simply because we need to for
transportation. The international community, in Sweden the standard is
10 millirems, not 100, like this bill says; France is 25 millirems per
year; Finland and Switzerland, 10 millirems per year; and Canada is 1
millirem per year.
Should we in the United States not protect our citizens the same as
these countries? I urge a ``yes" vote on the Markey amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, the people in Nevada and the people of this country
were told in the 1940's and the 1950's that they were not going to be
exposed to undue amounts of radiation when the nuclear test blasts were
going off in that part of America.
Well, it turns out that this summer, after holding this information
for the last 40 to 45 years, that the Federal Government now tells us
that, in fact, millions of Americans were exposed to unhealthy levels
of iodine, unhealthy levels of strontium 90 in locations that had never
before been considered, not just in Nevada but all over the United
States, wherever the plume of those explosions carried by the winds
might have endangered health and safety.
Well, once again we have the Federal Government sitting here picking
a start, 100 millirems. We decide. ``Do not worry about it. Bring your
children. Bring your pregnant wife. Do not worry about it.'' We have no
right, we have no business, especially after what we have learned this
past summer about what the Federal Government did in Nevada and
surrounding States in the 1950's.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 3
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
am on the Committee on Commerce. I am also a physician. And in looking
at this legislation, I think it is reasonable, I think the standards
are reasonable.
We are talking about 100 millirems per year. For the average
American, the exposure from the sunlight is about 300 millirems per
year, three times that amount. If one lives in a higher place, a higher
altitude place like Denver, CO, we are talking about 400 millirems per
year. If we are talking about a flight attendant, actually probably
almost all our colleagues who have to fly in airplanes, we get higher
doses than that. If we are talking about two chest x-rays, we are
talking about 100 millirems. If we are talking
[[Page H9703]]
about a surgeon who works in an operating room where they take x-rays,
we are talking about in excess of 100 millirems per year. This is safe.
But I also support the bill, and I think that we need to look at the
safety that is built into this bill. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has looked at these casks that this material is going to be transported
in. That cask is literally stronger and more powerful than a
locomotive. When a speeding 120-ton locomotive is crashed into a 25-ton
nuclear waste cask at 80 miles per hour, the train is demolished but
the cask is okay.
Other tests show that the cask is impervious to heat, including a 30-
minute exposure to 1475 degrees Fahrenheit that engulfs the entire
chamber. We drop that cask nearly 4 feet onto a 6-inch steel rod and it
still does not leak.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, it is not that we have not seen a lot of
transportation of nuclear material in the last 30 years. There have
been, on an average, 100 trips per year by specially-trained crews,
over 2,300 trips, and there has never been a leak or release of any
radioactivity.
When we get right down to it, Mr. Chairman, we have to decide on a
very important issue: Do we want this nuclear waste scattered around
the country at 50 sites, close to Lake Superior, close to major
population centers, or should we put it out in the desert away from the
population centers in a safe place?
Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what the people of Iowa are
telling me. They are telling me, put it away from where the people are,
put it away from our Great Lakes, get it away from our rivers where, if
an accident would happen, we would have a disaster; and put it into one
place, put it into one place where it is efficiently and safely watched
over.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gibbons
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Gibbons:
Page 55, beginning in line 3 strike ``, except that'' and
all that follows through line 21 and insert a period.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] will be allocated
10 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment that I am offering today will protect the American
taxpayers from being forced to pay out of their own pockets for a
highly irradiated nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
thousands and thousands of years into the future.
Since 1987, the utility ratepayers have paid, yes, they have, based
on electricity generated by nuclear power plants, into the nuclear
waste trust fund. These funds were intended to be used for suitability
study and construction of a deep geologic storage facility at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, for high-level nuclear waste. The fees were based on
1 mill per kilowatt hour; 1 mill roughly equals one-tenth of one cent.
Unfortunately, despite the presence of this trust fund, the nuclear
power lobby is trying to force all American taxpayers to pick up the
tab for transporting and storing this waste at Yucca Mountain. Why?
Because nuclear waste translates into stranded capital cost for these
energy companies.
The current Nuclear Waste Policy Act assumes that a permanent storage
facility would be ready by 1998. However, this option is not available.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act states in section 111(a)(5) and 131(a)(1)
that the responsibility for interim storage rests directly upon the
generators of high-level waste. However, yet again, these poster boys
for corporate welfare want American taxpayers to take all legal
responsibility and provide the funding for this highly irradiated
nuclear waste.
My amendment would delete the cap within the bill and give the
Secretary of Energy the authority to assess a fee on the existing
reactors to reflect the amount of funding needed in a given year to
cover the cost of operating Yucca Mountain, thereby sparing taxpayers
who have no stake in nuclear power or nuclear waste.
The problem exists as reactors shut down, Mr. Chairman, which will
increase logarithmically into the future. This means that there will no
longer be revenue generated nor a revenue stream to fund the
development and operation of that repository for thousands and
thousands of years following the last reactor shutdown. The likelihood
of the utilities being able to cover the cost of permanent repository
is very unlikely, and the financial burden will be shifted to the
taxpayer.
A GAO study has estimated that the Yucca Mountain project
construction cost will be nearly $33 billion. There is only $13 billion
in the fund right now. The shortfalls would quickly appear if Congress
should pass H.R. 1270 without this amendment.
The Congressional Budget Office states that the impact of carrying
out H.R. 1270 would be a net discretionary spending increase of $1.9
billion over the expected waste fund receipts during the 1998 to the
2002 period. While H.R. 1270 would change the financing of the nuclear
waste program from a steady 1 mill per kilowatt hour fee to an
adjustable fee tied to annual program appropriations, the bill also
dictates that the average fee over the next 12 years cannot exceed 1
mill.
Moreover, as electricity deregulation continues and the higher-priced
nuclear power is forced to compete with cheaper forms of generated
electricity, it is probable that many nuclear reactors will be
decommissioned before their licenses expire. One study predicted that
40 percent of operating reactors would shut down early and would
therefore cease making contributions to the nuclear waste fund.
Without passage of this amendment, the nuclear waste fund will boil
and distill down to Congress either making the taxpayers of this
country pay for the storage and transportation of nuclear waste or
abandon the project altogether.
The great people of Nevada do not benefit from nuclear energy, nor do
States that lack nuclear power plants. Why should they be required to
pay for a nuclear storage facility? Why should they be forced to spend
their tax dollars to support a nuclear industry bailout?
At a time when Congress is making great strides to balancing the
Federal budget, we should continue this laudable goal and allow the
Secretary of Energy to increase the mill rate to protect the taxpayers
of this country. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I ask
Members to protect the American taxpayer and make a common sense vote
on a very important fiscal issue. I ask for their support and ask them
to vote favorably for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me say, this amendment would delete the 1 mill cap and permit the
Secretary of Energy to assess a fee on existing nuclear energy plants
to reflect the amount of funding needed in a given year to cover the
cost of operations. Basically, that is what it does, but let us really
analyze it.
First, they suggested to let the governor have veto power. That will
flat kill it. Next, they are going to let FERC make some decisions that
could cancel it. And now they are going to let the Secretary of Energy
assess a fee, not only an illegal delegation of fees and of
congressional authority.
[[Page H9704]]
{time} 2045
It is not only an illegal delegation of fees and the congressional
authority, the facts are hard and clear that sufficient funding exists
already under H.R. 1270. The annual contribution of nuclear generated
electricity consumers to the Nuclear Waste Fund would be based on the
annual amount spent by the government to build storage and disposal
facilities for used nuclear fuel. This amendment, so far as I read it,
says, ``We gotta collect more money because there isn't enough money to
finish the program 30 years from now.'' The key argument against that
is that we have collected over $13 billion since 1983. We have spent $6
billion, diverted it elsewhere. I think by 2010 the Nuclear Waste Fund
balance is projected to be $20.9 billion. That is enough to support an
interim storage facility and begin operating a permanent repository,
according to the DOE program cost projections provided to Congress in
July of this year. Also there is already a provision in the bill to
expand the $1 million cap to $1.5 million to pay for construction of
central storage facilities. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not needed.
It is already provided for. We urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Las Vegas, Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. First we had environmental protections. They nixed those. Next
safety, public safety, discarded. Next, States rights, 10th amendment,
ignored. Also private property rights. They would not even allow us to
have an amendment on this floor to debate private property rights.
Gotten rid of. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we have to at least support the
taxpayer. Of anybody we have got to be concerned about on here, should
we at least not be supportive of the taxpayer?
For crying out loud, what this bill does is says that when these
nuclear power plants shut down, and they are going to shut down, and
there will not be ratepayers to pay the bills to keep nuclear waste
stored and to pay for that nuclear waste and there is not enough money
in the trust fund and these ratepayers over the next years will not
have enough money in the trust fund, when that happens, guess who ends
up holding the buck? The person out there making $30,000 a year, the
middle income American that has everything on their shoulders already,
that has this huge national debt already. Now we are going to pile more
debt on them.
If Members consider themselves fiscal conservatives, and I do not
know anybody in this body hardly that considers themselves anything but
a fiscal conservative, but if you consider yourself a fiscal
conservative, you have to at least vote for this amendment. This bill
is bad enough, but at least this amendment would give the taxpayer some
sort of protection against the nuclear power industry shifting the
burden from themselves to the taxpayer.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
If Members want to stand logic on its head, take the argument from
the last gentleman from Nevada and say what we are going to do is not
the nuclear companies that are the power companies that have this, it
is the ratepayers. Ratepayers are people who flip the switch on and
expect the lights to go on and they also happen to be taxpayers. So the
people who are getting gouged in this amendment are the taxpayers of
this country, the ratepayers. What they really want you to do is say,
now when you flick the lights on, not only are you going to have to
pay, are you paying this contract that you had with the Federal
Government and the Federal Government says you are going to take this
waste and store it as of 1998, the Federal Government and these folks
here say, you can just forget about that contract, that promise to the
American people, and, by the way, we are going to ask for more money.
But the real ridiculous issue here is they are going to ask for more
money. They want more money from American ratepayers, American
taxpayers? Mr. Chairman, we have paid in $13 billion. Six billion of
those dollars never went to the nuclear repository. $6 billion went to
the big spenders over here in the Federal Government. They have funded
the United Nations with it. They have funded welfare programs with it.
Now they want to fund more of their big government programs with it. I
think we need to have some responsibility for the American taxpayer and
the American ratepayer, those people who have to be responsible, that
have to go out and earn a living, that carry a lunch box to work. By
the way, they hope to have lights go on when they flip the lights on,
they hope to have a safe place to live. They expect the Federal
Government to carry out its promise, its Federal contract, to say they
are going to take this nuclear waste and store it. Now all of a sudden
they are saying, ``Oh, by the way, we're going to change this bill.
We're going to ask you to pay more.''
Mr. Chairman, it is not right. We need to keep the contract with the
American people. We need to dispose of nuclear waste in a safe way, and
we need to move forward with it. I would ask that Members reject this
very expensive amendment to the American people and move forward.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman who just
spoke would yield me the opportunity to offer him to give back all this
money if he would keep his nuclear waste.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, utility bills will go up because of this
legislation. Taxes will go up because of this bill. Utility profits and
stocks will also go up. Is there a connection? It is an outrage that
the American people will pay the price with their health, with higher
utility rates and with higher tax dollars to dispose of waste which
comes from commercial nuclear reactors. The Gibbons amendment seeks to
mitigate this unfair condition by ensuring that there will be enough
money in the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for the safe disposal of high-
level nuclear waste generated at commercial nuclear reactors. Let the
nuclear utilities pay the bill for the nuclear dump, not the American
taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, the utilities exist for us. We do not exist for them.
We give them the right to operate in the public interest, and we have
the responsibility to protect the American taxpayers. There is a rather
notorious nuclear reactor in northeast Ohio called the Perry Nuclear
Power Plant. More than 20 years ago I stood on the grounds where Perry
was being built to protest this project. It was supposed to have been 2
reactors at a price of $1 billion, and it turned into one reactor at a
price of $6 billion. Guess what? The reactor was built on a fault line.
Since then the nuclear utility company has gone down into the dumper
and the stocks have gone down. It has almost gone bankrupt. But the
taxpayers and ratepayers of northeast Ohio have had to suffer the
consequences.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues that the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required that consumers of nuclear-
generated electricity pay a fixed fee to the Nuclear Waste Fund for the
government to manage for this program. Of the $13 billion that has been
committed to the fund since 1983, about $6 or $7 billion in fact has
been used for other activities not relating to this one.
In 1982, I worked for President Reagan. I can remember his signing
statement in 1982 when Congress passed that bill. Some of us here, not
me, but some of the Members here voted for that bill, and President
Reagan thought that in a few years this thing would be done. Here it
is, 1997, 15 years later, we are debating a bill that, when enacted,
still will not see this thing completed for another 10 or 15 years.
We do not need this amendment. The ratepayers are paying already
tooth and nail for this program. Not all of the money has been spent
for the program as it was originally intended. To lift the cap on this
program is not necessary. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.
[[Page H9705]]
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is a great amendment. This bill puts a cap on how much money is
going to be collected for the permanent and interim storage facility,
and then it says that the money for the permanent repository will be
expended for the interim facility. Because of wholesale and pretty soon
retail competition in the marketplace, we know that there are going to
be fewer and fewer nuclear power plants because they cannot compete
economically. Connecticut Yankee closed down this year. Maine Yankee is
about to close. The only place from which you can generate revenues
from this are nuclear power plants. All the other power plants do not
have to kick in.
What is going to happen in the year 2002 is we may find that Yucca
Mountain is not suitable, we will have run out of money, we will need
more, there will not be any, we are going to have to pick a new State
for the site. We know it will be a State with fewer than 3 Members of
Congress. Maybe it will be a territory, I do not know, but once we do,
we are going to have to go through the whole process again. Where will
the money come from? Under the proponents' amendment, all of the money
will come out of the taxpayers' pockets, even those that never had a
single kilowatt of nuclear-generated electricity. That is wrong. The
money should come from those that in fact enjoyed the benefit.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] has 20 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge every Member of this House to support the Gibbons amendment to
this bill. Nuclear waste has a half-life of 10,000 years. The opponents
of this measure are thinking 5, 10 years down the road. Who is going to
pay for the 9,990 years remaining on this bill and on this nuclear
waste tab? It is going to be the taxpayers if we do not pass this
amendment. The shortsighted opposition certainly has not got the best
interests of the taxpayers of America in sight. Vote yes on this
amendment.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time. Let me just address the matter of States rights a little bit,
whether or not States rights have been violated. None of us want to
violate States rights. We all claim to support States rights. Of
course, some of us want to put national standards on them and other
things to give them a little direction.
But which States are denied or which rights are violated? I do not
think any of them are because all States send a proportional group of
selected Congressmen, each of them refigured and recalculated every 10
years when they do the census. This site was selected by that group of
Congressmen 10 years ago. The 47 contiguous States, I think, that did
not get selected have some rights, also. They have the right to expect
safe transportation. The 47 contiguous States have the right to believe
that zero transportation reports are true. The 47 contiguous States
have the right, I think, to believe that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Transportation Department would require and regulate
very strict nuclear fuel shipments and that the commercial nuclear
industry has safely transported more than 10,000 used fuel assemblies
and 2900 shipments. None have resulted in the release of radioactivity.
All the States, all 50 of the States have the right to believe that
the Department of Energy so far has conducted more than 170 public
meetings about the transportation of used nuclear fuel across the
country and all 50 States, contiguous States included, have the right
to accept that H.R. 1270 would continue to permit States to choose
alternate highway routes. No other hazardous material in the United
States undergoes such rigorous transportation planning, even though
only less than 1 percent of the 100 million packages of hazardous
material shipped per year in the U.S. are used nuclear fuel.
I object to this amendment. I urge that we defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons]
will be postponed.
{time} 2100
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 9 printed
in House Report 105-354.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 9.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 81, insert after line 13 the following:
``SEC. 510. PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.
``(a) In General.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to
the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available under this Act should be
American-made.
``(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial
assistance to, or entering into any contract with, any entity
using funds made available under this Act, the head of each
Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall
provide to such entity a notice describing the statement made
in subsection (a) by the Congress.
``(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely
Labeling Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available under this Act, pursuant to the debarment,
suspension, and ineligibility procedures described in
sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal
Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says if we do not buy America, we will in
fact waste America. It also says if anyone affixes a fraudulent made-
in-America label to an import, they will be tortured and planted for
10,000 years at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I did not claim any time in opposition, because I think
it is a terrific amendment, and we over on this side are certainly
willing to accept it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the ranking member.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree, and compliment
the gentleman on his consistent support of buy America.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], the author of
the legislation.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would say I do not think I have opposed
one of the gentleman's buy America amendments in the years we have been
together on the floor, and I look forward to voting for it tomorrow.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I
yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, further proceedings
on
[[Page H9706]]
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 printed in House
Report 105-354.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Blunt) having assumed the chair, Mr. McInnis, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1270), to
amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________