[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11857-S11858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators on the floor, 
I wish to address my views on the passage of the nuclear waste 
legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives, which occurred last 
week.
  Mr. President, last week Congress took a very important step toward 
ending our Nation's 15-year struggle with how to solve our high-level 
nuclear waste problem. Last week, the House passed H.R. 1270 by an 
overwhelming, bipartisan 307-to-120 vote. The House bill is a companion 
to S. 104, the nuclear waste bill passed by the Senate by a 65-to-34 
vote last spring.
  Like the Senate bill, the House bill would take nuclear waste from 80 
sites in 40 States, from the backyards of our constituents all across 
this land, and move it to one safe, central storage site. The Federal 
Government has a contractual commitment to take this nuclear waste for 
safe and central storage by next January.
  Will that happen? The answer is clearly ``no,'' even though over $13 
billion has been collected from America's ratepayers to pay for the 
permanent storage of that waste, and even though a Federal court order 
has reaffirmed the Government's legal obligation to take nuclear waste 
in January 1998. The same court is now considering what remedy the 
Government must provide for its failure to meet this obligation. This 
is the Government's failure, but it is the American taxpayer that is 
going to bear the burden. The American public paid that $13 billion 
into the nuclear waste fund and now will have to pay a second time. 
Estimates of potential damages for the failure of the Department of 
Energy to meet its obligations range from $40 billion to as high as $80 
billion. That is $1,300 per American family.

  How important is the nuclear power industry in this country? It 
contributes around 22 percent of the total power generation in this 
country. It provides electricity with no emissions, so air quality is 
not a problem. The problem is what do you do with the waste? You cannot 
throw it up in the air. It has to come down somewhere. The reality is 
that no one wants it. The French reprocess their spent fuel and recover 
the plutonium, put it back in the reactors and burn it. The Japanese 
are moving in that direction, as well.
  We are hopelessly tied to a dilemma: no one wants nuclear waste and 
we don't have any place to put it. Some of the plants are reaching 
their maximum capacity. Without the licensing of proper storage and 
without the Federal Government meeting its obligations to take this 
waste, we stand to lose a significant portion of our Nation's nuclear 
generating capacity.
  How are we going to make up for this lost generation? Are we going to 
put more coal fired plants on-line? How does the Clinton administration 
reconcile this position with their professed concern about emissions? 
If we lose a portion of our nuclear power generating capability, it is 
going to have to be replaced with something, and the Clinton 
administration has not provided us with any answers. Nor has it 
adequately addressed its contractual responsibility to take this waste.
  Mr. President, without the legislation passed by the both the House 
and the Senate, there is no plan for action except more lawsuits, more 
employment for the lawyers. As we move to conference, opponents of the 
bill will continue to sing the same old, tired refrain. They call it 
``Mobile Chernobyl,'' emasculating NEPA, running roughshod over our 
environmental laws. These scare tactics are a coverup, an excuse for no 
action. That is what we have had so far, no action in 15 years.
  They will say the fuel is safely stored where it is. It is stored in 
temporary facilities next to the reactors that were designed for just 
that, temporary storage. But if it is safely stored where it is, then 
why isn't it safe to store it in Nevada at the Nevada test site, near 
where we have spent over $6 billion to develop a site that is facing, 
in the near future, licensing and suitability decisions? In fact, there 
is no question in my mind it must be safer to have one central, 
monitored site than to have nuclear waste at 80 sites scattered around 
the country at facilities that have been designed for temporary 
storage.
  Then, of course, they argue that somehow it is unsafe to move nuclear 
fuel to one central site. But we have shown how we have been safely 
moving fuel around this country and abroad for many, many years. The 
French, the Japanese, and the Swedes move it by vessel, they move it by 
rail, they move it by truck.
  They say the transportation casks cannot stand a 30-mile-per-hour 
crash or survive a diesel fuel fire. These are more emotional arguments 
that have no foundation. We have shown that the casks have been tested 
by locomotives going 90 miles an hour crashed into brick walls. They 
have been submerged in water, bathed in fire. The casks are designed to 
withstand any type of imaginable impact associated with transportation. 
We have shown that, while we have had a few minor accidents, there has 
never been a release of radiation. We have shown how our national 
laboratories have certified that

[[Page S11858]]

the transportation casks can survive any real-world crash. They say the 
radiation protection standard is unsafe. We have shown how our standard 
is more protective than the current EPA guidance that allows five times 
as much, and we will allow EPA to tighten the standards further if need 
be.
  The doomsayers say the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says 
there is no compelling or technical or safety reason to move fuel to a 
central location. We have shown that a more complete reading of the 
technical review report and testimony indicates that there is a need 
for an interim storage and that there is a need for it at Yucca 
Mountain, if, indeed, Yucca is determined to be suitable for a 
permanent repository.
  They say, ``We can delay the decision.'' We have shown that delay is 
what got us into this mess in the first place; inactivity. Any time 
now, the courts will tell us what damages we will face when the 
Government is in breach of its contract. With each delay, the damages 
are going to mount. With each delay, the liability of the taxpayer will 
mount. With each delay, there will be pressure to yield a further 
delay. That is the way this place works. When we have a problem, we 
simply delay. The call for delay is a siren song and, ultimately, a 
trap.
  We stand at a crossroads. The job of solving this problem is ours. 
The time for solving the problem is now. We have made much progress at 
Yucca Mountain. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel is complete. We can build 
on this progress. Both the Senate and House bill contain site 
characterization activities for the permanent repository. But we cannot 
put all our eggs in the Yucca basket. We need a temporary storage 
facility now or we are going to be storing spent fuel all across the 
Nation for decades to come. We can choose whether this Nation needs 80 
interim storage sites or just one. Where is that? The arid, remote, 
Nevada test site where we exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the 
cold war. It is a safe, remote location. It is monitored, and it is 
appropriate for an interim site.
  If Yucca Mountain is licensed, it will be an easy task to move the 
spent fuel a short distance to the repository. If Yucca is not licensed 
and is found to be unsuitable, we will need a centralized interim site 
anyway, so we will be way ahead of the game. Regardless of what happens 
at Yucca, this is a responsible step that we should take.

  Mr. President, the time is now. This legislation passed the House and 
the Senate. It is the answer. I urge my colleagues over the recess to 
reflect on the merits of our obligation to take this waste, to 
recognize the dependence we have on the nuclear industry, and move to 
take a responsible position to uphold the contract that has been made 
by the Government to take this waste in conformance with the terms of 
the agreement and the $13 billion paid by the ratepayers.
  For those who are still in doubt as to the merits of this 
legislation, I encourage them to recognize that it is irresponsible to 
object to what has happened in both the House and the Senate without 
providing an alternative. The development of this legislation has 
required a great deal of time and effort and a great deal of 
examination of alternatives. So I hope the critics come up with a 
workable alternative, as opposed to just criticism of the plan that is 
currently pending in the Congress of the United States, to meet our 
obligations to address the high-level nuclear waste issue.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________