[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S556-S559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take some time today to express 
my outrage with the way the federal government has handled its 
responsibility to remove and store nuclear waste from 41 states across 
the country and to outline my thoughts on the bill before us. I'm also 
going to speak about my expectations for the future of nuclear energy 
and the future of nuclear waste storage in the State of Minnesota.
  First, I hope the Senate will indulge me while I review the process 
that has brought all of us here today.
  As everyone in this chamber knows, Washington's involvement in 
nuclear power isn't new. Since the 1950's

[[Page S557]]

``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government has promoted 
nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove radioactive waste from 
power plants.
  Congress decisively committed the federal government to take and 
dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its amendments in 1987.
  This is nothing new. Eighteen years ago Congress decided that the 
Federal Government was going to take this waste beginning in 1998, and 
also by amendments in 1987 reestablish those facts.
  These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca Mountain, Nevada as 
the site to assess for the permanent disposal facility, established 
fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour on nuclear-generated 
electricity--and provided that these fees would be deposited in the 
Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized appropriations from this 
fund for a number of activities, including development of a nuclear 
waste repository.
  Eventually, publication of the Standard Contract addressed how 
radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then 
signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities 
promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning 
January 31, 1998--over two years ago. Other administrative proceedings, 
such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told 
the American public that they should literally bank on the federal 
government's promise.
  In other words, take this promise to the bank.
  I think this point needs to be clearly understood by the Members of 
this body.
  Our nation's nuclear utilities didn't go out and invest in nuclear 
power in spite of federal government warnings of future difficulties. 
Instead, they were encouraged by the federal government to turn to 
nuclear power to meet increasing energy demands.
  Utilities and states were told to move forward with investments in 
nuclear technologies because it's a sound source of energy production.
  And the federal government's support for nuclear power was based on 
some very sound considerations.
  First, nuclear power is environmentally friendly. Nothing is burned 
in a nuclear reactor, so there are no emissions in the atmosphere. In 
fact, nuclear energy is responsible for over 90 percent of the 
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that have come out of the energy 
industry since 1973. Between 1973 and 1996, nuclear power accounted for 
emissions reductions of 34.6 million tons of nitrogen oxide and another 
80.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide.
  Second, nuclear power is a reliable base load source of power. 
Families, farmers, businesses, and individuals who are served by 
nuclear power are served by one of the most reliable sources of 
electricity.
  Third, nuclear energy is a homegrown technology, and the United 
States led the way in its development. We have long been the world 
leader in nuclear technology and continue to be the largest nuclear-
producing country in the world. Using nuclear power increases our 
energy security.
  Finally, much of the world recognizes those same values and promotes 
the use of nuclear power because of its reliability, its environmental 
benefits, and its value to energy independence.
  Because of those reasons, the Federal Government threw one more bone 
to our Nation's utilities. It said if you build nuclear power, we will 
take care of your nuclear waste, we will build a repository, and we 
will take it out of your State.
  In response to those promises--again, those promises the Federal 
Government said you can take to the bank--over 30 States took the 
Federal Government at its word and allowed civilian nuclear energy 
production to move forward.
  As I mentioned earlier, ratepayers agreed to share some of the 
responsibilities but again were promised some things in return. They 
agreed to pay a fee, attached to their energy bill, to pay for the 
proper handling of the spent nuclear fuel, in exchange for assurances 
that the Federal Government meet its responsibility to manage any waste 
storage challenge. Again, contracts were made, contracts were signed.
  Because of these procedures and measures taken by the Federal 
Government, ratepayers have now paid over $15 billion, including 
interest, into the nuclear waste fund. Today these payments continue, 
exceeding $1 billion dollars annually, or about $70,000 for every hour 
of every day of the year.
  In summary, the Federal Government promoted nuclear power, utilities 
agreed to invest in nuclear power, States agreed to host nuclear 
powerplants, and ratepayers assumed the responsibility of investing in 
long-term storage of nuclear waste.
  Still, nuclear waste is stranded on the banks of the Mississippi 
River in Minnesota and on countless other sites across the country 
because the Department of Energy has a very short-term memory, and this 
administration has virtually no sense of responsibility. We can all 
argue all day long on the floor of this Chamber on the merit of nuclear 
power, but we cannot stand here today and deny that the Federal 
Government promoted nuclear power and promised to take care of nuclear 
waste and that there is nuclear waste piled up around the country.
  The Clinton administration, however, would have you believe that they 
do not have a responsibility to deal with nuclear power. I have been 
working with Senator Murkowski and many other Members over the roughly 
5 years I have been in the Senate to establish an interim repository 
for nuclear waste and to be able to move forward with the development 
of a permanent repository. We have brought a bill to the floor that 
accomplishes those objectives in each of the past two Congresses. Each 
time, we passed the bill in both the House and the Senate with 
overwhelming bipartisan support. Just over 2 years ago, we passed by a 
vote of 65-34 a bill that would have removed nuclear waste from States, 
and the House passed the bill with 307 supporters--a veto-proof 
majority in the House.

  We have had extensive debate with the opportunity for anyone to offer 
amendments. We have thoroughly addressed most issues related to nuclear 
waste storage, including the transportation of waste across the United 
States. Yet every time we have passed a bill that fulfills the Federal 
Government's commitments, President Clinton has issued his veto threat 
and he has stopped our efforts in their tracks.
  After years of trying to establish an interim storage site, we are 
now left with only the ability to make some smaller changes to the 
nuclear waste program and condition the date for removal of waste on 
the authorization for construction of the permanent repository.
  I want to tell my colleagues that I am not overly joyous about the 
bill before the Senate today. In fact, I don't think this bill does 
enough. But I don't blame those who support the bill for what the bill 
does not do, and neither should anyone else across the Nation or anyone 
here in Congress. If anyone is at fault for the lack of a definite 
action and definitive action on this issue, it is the Clinton 
administration.
  As my colleagues are very well aware, my main concerns with the 
nuclear waste storage issue have centered on two major issues. First, 
the ratepayers of Minnesota have paid countless millions into the 
nuclear waste fund, and they expect nuclear waste to leave Minnesota at 
a reasonable date. More specifically, Minnesota ratepayers expect 
nuclear waste to leave our State no later than beginning on January 31, 
1998. We all know that it didn't, and we all have known it won't be 
leaving anytime soon no matter what we do this week in the Senate.
  Second, because the State of Minnesota recognized in the early 1990s 
the Federal Government would not meet its obligation to remove spent 
nuclear fuel from the State by January 1998, it placed a limit on the 
amount of onsite waste storage at Northern States Power Company's 
Prairie Island Facility. Northern States Power agreed to that limit. 
But it now appears the State-imposed limit for this onsite storage will 
be reached sometime in the year 2007, and then two nuclear reactors 
that produced 20 percent of Minnesota's electricity will be forced to 
shut down.

[[Page S558]]

  At a time when we are trying to reduce carbon dioxide, sulfur 
dioxide, and other emissions across the country, Minnesota will be 
losing 20 percent of its emissions-free electricity generation, and it 
will be replaced with fossil fuels. The loss of those two reactors also 
means increased costs to ratepayers, as Minnesotans will continue to 
pay in their rates for the operation of the nuclear facility even after 
it is shut down. Security will be needed, people will have to remain 
onsite to monitor both the waste in casks and the spent rods and the 
storage pool.
  Water systems will have to remain working, as will any emergency 
response teams. In fact, the costs of operations may not reduce much at 
all. The ratepayers will pay the bill and they will get nothing for it. 
So there are some big problems that need to be addressed in my State, 
and it will require the participation and also the leadership of the 
Federal Government.

  While this bill does not immediately fix either of these concerns, it 
does make some progress that I believe is important to move forward. 
First, while this legislation doesn't move waste from Minnesota or any 
other State on a specific date, it does advance the removal date by 
allowing the construction of an early acceptance facility upon approval 
of construction for the permanent repository. Right now, that would 
mean sometime in late 2006 or sometime early 2007.
  Under the current situation, we won't move waste until the permanent 
repository is built and operating--and no one is quite sure when that 
will be. We thought we had a date certain for the removal of waste--
again, going back to the old contracts, bills passed in 1982, that it 
would begin no later than January 31, 1998. Again, the Department of 
Energy ignored it as if it didn't exist, that the contracts they signed 
didn't matter, and had no bearings. They continue to do the same yet 
today.
  This bill tries to establish a reasonable threshold for the 
construction of an early receipt facility. I think that is something 
that is achievable. The bill protects ratepayers by requiring that only 
Congress can undertake actions which would raise the fee paid by energy 
consumers into the nuclear waste fund. The Secretary of Energy will not 
be able to act unilaterally to raise that rate.
  He says he would like to take control, or take title to the nuclear 
waste, and they would pay for the facility and all the storage. But the 
only way they would do that is to go back to the ratepayers, or the 
taxpayers, for more money to take care of a problem they have ignored.
  Third, this bill will put in place transportation provisions for 
nuclear waste that are similar to those now in the place for the 
transport of low-level waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in 
New Mexico.
  Fourth, this bill tries to establish a mechanism by which we can 
avoid unreachable regulations governing the radiation standard for the 
permanent repository. The EPA should not be allowed to unilaterally set 
an unreasonable radiation standard aimed solely at ensuring the 
permanent repository is never built.
  The radiation standard should protect long-term human health and 
should be based on the best science available--but it should not be a 
bullet aimed at the heart of the permanent repository.
  Fifth, this bill addresses the problems just across the Minnesota 
border with Dairyland Power Cooperative. They have been requesting and 
needing some relief from their specific problem and have tremendous 
support in Minnesota.
  In fact, the Minnesota Rural Electric Association strongly supports 
this bill for that very reason.
  Sixth, I believe this bill is a step forward for nuclear power. There 
are provisions in the bill that allow for additional research into the 
transmutation of nuclear waste and the viability of reprocessing. 
Senator Domenici and I traveled to France and examined their waste 
program and reprocessing facilities.
  France has taken our technology and used it to create an amazingly 
integrated and well planned program that allows them to derive over 80 
percent of their electricity from nuclear power. For them, our 
fascination with nuclear waste is perplexing. They can deal with their 
waste.
  I stood on the floor under which all of their nuclear waste is now 
stored. We need to take another look at how we think about both nuclear 
power and nuclear waste storage and this bill allows for that to 
happen.
  Seventh, this bill does not include everything I believe it should. I 
have tried to address the situation with Northern States Power but 
right now we do not have a perfect answer. I believe keeping Prairie 
Island open and operating will require the cooperation of NSP, the 
Secretary of Energy, the States of Minnesota, and those of us in 
Congress.
  I will be pushing Secretary Richardson to come to Minnesota to sit 
down with the state legislature, the Governor's Office, NSP, and me to 
see if we can find some common ground.
  I have also received the assurance of Senator Murkowski that the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee will not forget about Minnesota 
and that he will continue to work with me on this important matter as 
well.
  I am also pleased that Senator Murkowski agreed to include some 
language I proposed which will aid in the process of addressing 
Minnesota's situation. My language has two specific components which 
will aid decisionmakers in Washington and in Minnesota throughout the 
coming months and years.
  The first part of my language requires the DOE to report on all 
alternatives available to NSP and the Federal Government which would 
allow NSP to operate the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant until 
the end of the term of its current NRC licenses, assuming existing 
State and Federal laws remain unchanged.
  I want to get the DOE engaged in discussions and cooperation with the 
State of Minnesota and NSP on this matter. Unfortunately, I have not 
seen a willingness within federal agencies to work with the State of 
Minnesota and NSP on what options might exist that would facilitate a 
resolution of this dispute.
  I want to get everyone working together on this problem now, not 6 
years from now when a shutdown is imminent.
  Additionally, my language will require the General Accounting Office 
to issue a report on the potential economic impacts to Minnesota 
ratepayers should the Prairie Island facility cease operations once it 
has met its state imposed storage limitation--including the costs of 
new generation, decommissioning costs, and the costs of continued 
operation of on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel storage.
  I am hopeful this information will give both policymakers and 
ratepayers a clearer indication of exactly what a shutdown of the 
facility means not only to the reliability of their electric service, 
but to the checkbooks of Minnesota families as well.
  Finally, I believe it was vitally important that we removed the take 
title provision from this legislation. I do not believe we should give 
the DOE any further opportunities to leave waste where it now sits. 
Allowing the DOE to take title to waste is a dangerous proposition for 
ratepayers.
  I was proud to join Senators Collins, Snowe, and Jeffords in offering 
the amendment to delete the take title provision and I am grateful 
Senator Murkowski deleted the take title provision from the manager's 
amendment as well.
  While these components will certainly be helpful to my State, I know 
there will be some in Minnesota who'll want me to oppose this bill 
because it does not go far enough. But I do not believe I would be 
serving the interests of my constituents by voting against a good bill 
that might help Minnesota ratepayers because of what is not in it.
  I should not vote against a good bill because it is not a perfect 
bill. And I cannot vote against a bill that might move waste out of 
Minnesota sooner than under current conditions, because it does not 
move waste out as soon as I would like. I intend to vote in support of 
this bill because I believe it is an important bill.
  I intend to vote for the bill because I want to remain part of this 
process and because I do not believe Minnesota can withdraw itself from 
this debate. And I intend to vote for this bill because I believe this 
is part of a process in restoring government accountability in the 
nuclear waste debate.

[[Page S559]]

  I may be back asking for more or looking for other opportunities to 
help my State and my State's ratepayers. I do not consider this matter 
closed either in Minnesota or in Washington, DC.
  I want to take just a moment to thank Senator Murkowski for his 
willingness to work with me and to continue to explore ways in which we 
can help my State. His staff have remained open to our concerns and 
willing to work with my staff.
  They have been honest about what they cannot do--and I appreciate 
that as well.
  I also want to issue a warning and a challenge to my colleagues in 
the Senate. Let us not assume that this is a great victory for 
ratepayers or for our States.
  This legislation does not fulfill the Federal Government's commitment 
to remove nuclear waste.
  Regrettably, this bill is but a shell of the bills we have passed 
with bipartisan support in each of the last two Congresses. So we 
should not go home and tell our constituents that this matter is 
resolved or that our work here is finished.
  I am a little biased, but I hope we have a totally new direction in 
the White House after next year. I hope that translates into a 
willingness to engage Congress and the States on nuclear waste issues 
rather than the protracted effort to ignore Congress and the States 
that this administration has relied upon.
  I believe we are going to have that new direction and I am going to 
be back asking that administration to move forward immediately on 
interim storage.
  If this administration is unwilling to provide the American people 
with the services for which they have paid, I hope and expect they will 
make sure the next administration will do that and live up to the 
promises it made.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________