Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S564-S579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S564]]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1287 which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1287) to provide for the storage of spent
nuclear fuel pending completion of a nuclear waste
repository, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Lott (for Murkowski) amendment No. 2808, in the nature of a
substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 11 a.m. shall be controlled by
the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, and the Senator from New
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, or their designees.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are now in the final hour of
discussion about this nuclear waste-related bill. I thought, since I do
not see Senator Murkowski, the chairman of our committee, I would go
ahead and make my statement indicating my position. I did speak
yesterday on the Senate floor on this issue and laid out the reasons I
will be voting against S. 1287 this morning. I encourage my colleagues
to join me in voting against the bill. I do so for the simple reason
that the bill as presently before us does not solve the problems of the
nuclear waste program. In fact, it magnifies those problems.
Let me go through some of the specifics.
First, the bill does not reduce the liability that is borne by
taxpayers for the program's failure. Instead of reducing that
liability, this bill would increase that liability. The part of the
bill that purports to offer the Department of Energy authority to
settle lawsuits filed against it is arguably worse for the U.S.
taxpayer than is current law. Other parts of the bill set new and
arbitrary deadlines for the Department of Energy to ship nuclear waste
to Nevada. We know today that the Department of Energy cannot meet
those deadlines, and a vote for this bill is a vote for a new wave of
litigation. We are already enmeshed in a great deal of litigation. A
vote for this bill will bring us even more litigation.
Second, this bill does not speed up the decision of the Department of
Energy on whether Yucca Mountain is suitable for a repository. In fact,
the effect of the bill is to slow down that decision. By delaying the
issuance of a radiation standard for Yucca Mountain by EPA, the bill
would delay the process of finalizing whether Yucca Mountain will be a
repository site.
The third point I want to make is that this bill does not make new
funds available to the nuclear waste program so we can do an effective
job of investigating Yucca Mountain and building a repository. Instead
of making those funds available, which we should be doing, to the
contrary, this bill caps the amount of funds the Department of Energy
can collect and shifts the burden of paying for nuclear waste disposal
from the beneficiaries of that nuclear power--that is, the people who
received electricity from it--to everyone else in the country.
The fourth point I want to make is that the bill does not facilitate
the movement of nuclear waste out of our individual States. In fact,
this bill, as I read it, would impede the transportation of waste out
of those States. Even if we managed to build a repository, if you are
from a State that has nuclear waste, the bill contains an impossible
hurdle to moving that waste out of your State. Read page 17 of the
bill. You will find that no shipments of nuclear waste can occur
anywhere until the Secretary of Energy has determined that emergency
responders in every locality and every tribal entity along primary or
alternative shipping routes for nuclear waste have met acceptable
standards of training.
Right in that single provision are the seeds of two huge lawsuits
that will keep nuclear waste in your State forever: A lawsuit over what
constitutes acceptable training and a lawsuit over the reasonableness
of the required determination by the Secretary of Energy that every
volunteer fire or ambulance company in every locality that might see
nuclear waste at some point is adequately trained.
Also, the requirements are vastly more restrictive on the Department
of Energy than anything we have ever considered in the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant case.
In my view, such a certification by a Cabinet officer is a practical
impossibility, not to mention an unprecedented intrusion by the Federal
Government into local government responsibilities.
The fifth point is that this bill does not fix the problem of the one
utility that is actually threatened by a shutdown of one of its plants
because of the failings of the Department of Energy's nuclear waste
program. I am speaking about the Northern States Power plant at Prairie
Island. Nothing in this bill forestalls the shutdown of that plant
which is expected in January of 2007.
One of the most disappointing developments of the past few days has
been the stripping from the bill of the major provision that did make
this bill worth passing, in my view, even though some of the flaws I
have described are still in the bill.
The provision that was stripped was a provision giving the Department
of Energy new authority and capability to resolve lawsuits that have
been filed against it. We have been told this is what a group of seven
Governors are insisting. They wanted us to drop this provision.
I studied a copy of their purported letter on this subject, and I
find it a very strange document. The copy I have been given is not
dated, it carries no signatures, and it is not on any official
letterhead. In fact, it carries a heading that suggests it is a draft
document. The letter is not about this bill. It is about testimony
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson gave about a year ago.
Some of the reasons given in the draft letter for opposing take title
do not apply to this legislation. One argument in the letter complains
that nuclear waste might be stored on riverfronts or lakes or seashores
where, of course, the reality is one finds nuclear waste stored today
in powerplants.
Specifically, an alternative to take title recommended in the letter
is not contained in the bill on which we are about to vote, so the
claim that by gutting this bill of its key provision --that is, its
take title provision--we have satisfied seven Governors is certainly
not supported by anything I have found in the document.
The other curious thing about what we have done to the bill during
the course of our deliberations this week when we removed this take
title provision is that we have converted its statutory instructions to
the Department of Energy for settling industry lawsuits into something
we know the States themselves publicly oppose. Without take title, all
the Department of Energy can do is use money from the nuclear waste
fund to give monetary and in-kind compensation to the utilities. That
is what section 105 of the bill now authorizes.
Listen to what 51 State agencies from 35 different States told a
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in January 1998 about
this concept. This is a quote from their pleadings in that case:

The Court should act decisively to bar DOE from using the
NWF [Nuclear Waste Fund] and ongoing fee payments to pay the
costs and damages resulting from its deliberate
noncompliance. Even the potential for DOE to consider such a
course should be immediately invalidated. . . .

That is what the States said in 1998, and in this legislation we
instruct the Secretary of Energy to do exactly what 35 States pleaded
with the court not to allow the Department of Energy to do.

The No. 1 remedy sought by the 35 States in this lawsuit, several
pages after this statement, was a court order forbidding the Department
of Energy from doing what section 105 of this bill now tells the
Department of Energy to do. I am not making this statement based on
some unsigned, undated document. We have a copy of the signed petition
to the court here. I am glad to share that with any colleague who wants
to review it between now and the time of our final vote.
On that document, many of us will see the signature of our Attorney
General, our respective attorneys general from the States, or our
representatives from the public utility commissions in our States.
The bottom line is this bill is not going to fix what is wrong with
the Department of Energy's nuclear waste

[[Page S565]]

program. On the contrary, it will move us further from a final solution
we need to achieve. We should not pass the legislation. I hope my
colleagues will join me in voting against it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our
time.
Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes from our time to the Senator from
Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his
graciousness.
I rise in support of the provisions of the manager's amendment that
strikes the take title language from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
amendments. I express my great appreciation to the committee chairman,
Senator Murkowski, for his willingness to work with us to address the
concerns of a number of States, including my home State of Maine, about
the take title provisions.
Our States feared that the take title provisions would grant the
Department of Energy a license to permanently store nuclear waste where
it now sits--on the very vulnerable riverfronts, seashores, and lake
borders of many States.
The take title provision was a fatal flaw in this otherwise necessary
and sound legislation. This provision was based upon an ill-advised
effort by the Department of Energy to shirk its responsibilities to
store nuclear waste.
The take title provision would have allowed the Department of Energy
to take ownership of the nuclear waste at each individual nuclear plant
across the Nation. At first blush, that sounds very reasonable, but we
have to look at the record.
Given the Department of Energy's dismal record of missed deadlines
and its utter failure to deal with the nuclear waste issue, new waste
storage facilities created under the take title provision would run the
very real risk of becoming de facto permanent waste sites.
Moreover, this administration has simply done a miserable job of
allaying the fears of the Governor of my State and the people of many
other States who all fear the take title provision is a ruse to create
permanent repositories at each site.
Residents of my State of Maine have been paying into the nuclear
waste fund for years with assurances that the radioactive waste from
the State of Maine and from Maine Yankee, in particular, would be moved
to a permanent repository, not left in Wiscasset, ME, where the plant
once operated. Since 1982, the ratepayers of Maine have paid nearly
$150 million into the fund. Yet we have seen no progress, no results.
What to do with our Nation's nuclear waste is, indeed, a difficult
question, but creating semipermanent storage at over 100 facilities
across the Nation is clearly not the answer.
Similarly, allowing the Department of Energy to continue to dodge its
responsibilities is not the answer. The answer is a safe, consolidated
facility. The answer is for the Department of Energy to fulfill its
obligations. The answer is for the Department of Energy to take
possession of the waste, not just in Maine but by physically removing
it from these sites across our country.
I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. I believe it
will solve the problems with the take title provision and thus improve
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Wyoming
for yielding.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be brief.
I come to the floor for just a couple of moments to express my
sincere regret that we have not been able to come together to resolve
the outstanding differences that are represented today in the debate
and will be represented in the final outcome of the vote.
I give great credit to the distinguished ranking member of the
committee, Senator Bingaman, and to our colleagues, both from Alaska
and Nevada, for the effort that has been made to try to reach some
accommodation.
Unfortunately, in part because of a lack of willingness on the part
of some of our Republican colleagues to come to the middle, we have
lost a golden opportunity to finally resolve this matter once and for
all.
The administration has indicated it will veto this bill in its
current form. The EPA, the Secretary of Energy, and others, have
expressed vehement opposition. Environmental groups, both liberal and
conservative, the energy utility companies, oftentimes in favor of this
legislation, in many cases today have come out in opposition to this
bill, in part because of the failure to reach some compromise, and in
part because this situation now makes their lives even more complicated
and more difficult than it was before. Furthermore, there is deep
concern that this bill undermines EPA's ability to protect the American
public by delaying its authority to issue a radiation safety standard
until 2001.
Instead of streamlining the process of moving nuclear waste to
Nevada, this bill has complicated it even more. And, it fails to
relieve American taxpayers of the extraordinary liability they face due
to the failure to establish a long-term storage site. As a result, we
have no choice but to continue to oppose the legislation in its current
form.
I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this bill. Maybe
in conference we can work it out. If we can, maybe we can come to the
floor at another date, with another opportunity to see if we cannot
successfully resolve these outstanding problems. But today that has not
happened.
Today, Senator Bingaman and others have expressed their regret and
their opposition. We simply cannot allow a bad bill to pass and be
signed into law. This is the one opportunity we will have to do it
right. We have to do it right before it is signed into law. The
President has insisted on that. I think it is incumbent on us to insist
on that. I think the American people expect no less.
Mr. President, in just a short while we will have the opportunity to
vote. It is my sincere hope that a large number of colleagues, on both
sides of the aisle, will join us in saying: No. We have not done the
job yet. Until we do it right, our vote will remain no.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill. The time has come for
the Congress and the Federal Government to step up to do something.
This is not a new issue. It has been going on for a very long time. As
a matter of fact, the basic legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982--required the Federal Government to build a storage facility
for spent fuel, to accept nuclear waste by 1998, to develop a
transportation system, and that the cost would be paid for by the
electric utility customers. The Department of Energy has not done this.
The administration has not lived up to its part of it. They have been
required to have a plan, but they have done very little.
The Federal Government has accepted the more than $16 billion
collected from utility customers to do this. It has not shown results.
The customers, of course, have been hit more than once in terms of
paying the higher rates.
The time has sort of expired to continue to debate this issue, to
continue to have opposition, which does not surprise me because there
has not been many positive options coming from the other side of the
aisle. All we have is resistance. All we have is: No, we are not going
to do that.
This year I had the chance to go down to the nuclear storage site in
New Mexico. We have spent billions of dollars there. We have moved only
a very small amount into that storage spot. Idaho has not been able to
use that at all.
Currently over 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is being
stored at 74 sites in 36 States. An additional 35,000 metric tons from
weapons production and naval facilities increases the number of sites.
I understand this legislation isn't what everybody would like to
have, but the fact is that we need to do something. Passing this bill
will start us moving in that direction. That is what we ought to do.
The legislation drops interim storage, requires the Congress to
approve

[[Page S566]]

increases in fees collected, sets a schedule for the development of a
repository, authorizes backup storage for any spent fuels, and allows
EPA to set radiation standards after June 1, 2001. It does a number of
things on which we need to move further. It authorizes the settlement
for outstanding litigation and sets an acceptance schedule for spent
fuel. I know it is a difficult issue.
I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig for all of their hard
work. The Energy Committee, which has approached this several times,
has done a number of things. Frankly, the time for delay is over.
We are experiencing some of the same kind of resistance to doing
something now in the INEEL situation in Idaho where we are looking very
hard at some alternative to incineration.
I have heard from the Vice President. He said he would look into it.
I have heard from Mr. Frampton from the White House who said he would
look into it. I have heard from the Secretary of Energy who promised to
look into it, but nothing has happened.
There is a limit to the amount of time we can continue to stall in
making some decisions with regard to this nuclear issue.

I urge support for this bill. I hope we can move forward with it
today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Chair a good morning.
I ask, how much time is remaining for the majority?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. And for the minority?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I note a Dear Colleague letter is
circulating this morning from one of our colleagues from Montana and
one of our colleagues from California. It concerns the critical
environmental vote that will occur at 11 o'clock on the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act amendments.
It identifies that the protection of the health and safety of
American citizens should be our highest priority. I agree with that. It
further states that in order to do this, all decisions must be made
based on science, not politics. It suggests this legislation does not
do that.
I implore my colleagues, what we are attempting to do is use the best
science available. That is why we brought the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the National Science Academy into the recommending
process for EPA. But I point out for the benefit of anyone who still
has a doubt that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final
authority on determining the radiation standards. But the effort is to
get the best science.
Let's be honest with one another. Every time this legislation comes
up, it comes down to one thing: Nobody wants the waste.
I have said time and again, if you throw it up in the air, it has to
come down somewhere and that somewhere is Nevada. That decision was
made some time ago. We have expended $6 billion in the Yucca Mountain
effort.
The criticism of this legislation to which this Dear Colleague letter
points is it doesn't address an alternative. It is innuendo to say the
legislation ``unnecessarily slows EPA's ability.'' It can't do anything
until it is licensed. The ``legislation conveys undisclosed acreage of
Federal land to Nye and Lincoln Counties in Nevada without providing
any maps of the areas or conducting any hearings.'' That is simply not
true.
We are trying to accommodate the two affected counties in Nevada by
giving them BLM-accessed land. What in the world is wrong with that? Is
that contrary to the public health and safety? To me it is good for the
people of Nevada. I am sure if you asked the two Senators from Nevada
whether their constituents should receive this land, they would have a
pretty positive opinion.
What we have here are more smokescreens. We have a statement by the
minority ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works saying they have the sole discretion over nonmilitary
environmental regulations and control of atomic energy. Well, as
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have the
obligation to address the disposal of the nuclear waste. We have
attempted to do that in a responsible manner.
Yes, this is politics. This is hard core politics. It is trying to
accommodate my good friends from Nevada over their objection to put the
waste in their State. The Clinton administration, the administration of
Vice President Gore, simply doesn't want to address it on their watch.
That is all there is to it.
Each Member who votes against this legislation better be prepared to
go home and explain why they voted to keep the waste in their
individual State, when we had a chance to move it out to one central
location at Yucca Mountain. There it is, 80 sites in 40 States. We have
a chance to move it to one location.
The Northeast corridor State Governors said: We don't trust the
Federal Government; they didn't take the waste in 1998 when it was
contractually due; the ratepayers paid $15 billion; they broke the
sanctity of a contractual relationship. What the Governors are saying
is they don't want the waste stored in their State by the Federal
Government taking title because they are convinced the Federal
Government will leave it there. Well, they very well could be right.
As a consequence, we have this waste stored in these States on the
way to the schoolgrounds, the playgrounds, the hospitals, homes. We
have it on the shores of the Great Lakes--Lake Michigan, Lake Huron,
Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario--the great rivers--the
Mississippi, the Colorado, the Columbia--the Nation's seashores. We
must resolve to put it at a permanent site. That is all there is to it.
We have a good bill. This is a responsible environmental vote. The
environmental community has said, we are opposed to this legislation.
What are they for? Are they for leaving the waste where it is? Well,
they wouldn't respond to that question.
Each Member of this body is elected to make a responsible decision
and not be led by groups motivated by their own particular ideology.
Make no mistake about it: A large segment of America's environmental
community wants to kill the nuclear power industry. They want to kill
the nuclear industry because they are opposed to it. But they don't
look at the contribution that industry makes to clean air, and they do
not address the responsibility of what the alternative is.

So a responsible environmental vote is to move this from these 40
States and 80 sites to one central location that is designed for it.
Make no mistake about it: These temporary locations are not designed
for it.
There is criticism that this is some kind of a full blown attack by
the nuclear power industry. What they are seeking is relief. They are
seeking relief from the waste that has been generated over an extended
period of time and the inability of the Federal Government to meet its
contractual commitments. That should make every Member of this body
indignant. But that is what happened. Do you know who is taking it in
the shorts? The American taxpayer, because the claims against the
Federal Government for not taking that waste under the contract are
somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. That is about $1,400 per family
every year in this country. Nobody seems to care about it. I care about
it. I am sure you do, Mr. President.
We have a good bill. It uses the WIPP transportation model. It is
safe transport. The States decide the routes. Some of my colleagues are
fearful it is going to be moved by rail. It is not going to be moved by
rail. It is very doubtful. Rails don't go direct. A rail goes from one
railyard to the next railyard. Oftentimes those railyards are around
areas of high concentration of population. That doesn't make sense. The
Governors are going to have control of where these routes are
determined. They are going to be safe routes because we are going to
have professionals out there determining the safeguards, the drivers,
and so forth. In fact, we submitted a letter yesterday from the
national Teamsters Union. They are concerned because they want trained
people. Their trained people will be involved.

[[Page S567]]

Finally, EPA has the sole authority to set the radiation standard.
Don't let anybody tell you differently. I love my friends from Nevada.
I really do. I have a great deal of respect for them. I know where they
are coming from. Do you know what they said in the hearing? They said,
regardless of what the safeguards are, what assurances we have, we are
not going to support a bill that would put the waste in Nevada. I
understand that. So it means it doesn't make any difference what we do,
what the minority does, what the Senator from California and the
Senator from Montana do. We will never be able to convince them. I
understand that. So let's recognize that for what it is.
The Secretary may settle lawsuits and save the taxpayers this $80
billion liability. This legislation allows early receipt of fuel, once
construction is authorized, as early as 2006. The nuclear waste fee can
only be increased by Congress. It prevents unreasonable increases in
the fees. We provide benefits to counties most affected by repository
land conveyance of the 76,000 acres to Nye and Lincoln Counties. This
is the land that Nevada wanted. Well, I wonder how bad they want it
now.
We struggled with this problem for many years. The time is right. S.
1287 is the solution. Utility consumers have paid over $15 billion into
that waste fund. We cannot jeopardize the health and safety of citizens
across the country by leaving that spent nuclear fuel in 80 sites in 40
States. That is irresponsible. We should move it once and for all where
it belongs: at a remote site on the desert.
I will show my colleagues that picture one more time, where we have
had 800 nuclear tests over a period of 50 years. That is the site. We
risk, if we can't get this legislation through, losing 20 percent of
our clean generation. Where are we going to make it up? We can't
jeopardize our economic and environmental future by ignoring the
nuclear waste management issues. That is what we are going to do if
this legislation is not supported. We risk losing 103 nuclear
powerplants.
I urge Members to vote for S. 1287 and finally put this problem
behind us. And one more time, Mr. President--remember, each Member who
votes against this bill is going to be obliged to explain why they
voted to keep the waste in one of the 40 States that they come from
when they had a chance to move it to one central location, Yucca
Mountain.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be very brief.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the changes made
in the take title provisions. I have discussed it with my Governor, and
now I can say that we no longer have an objection to the bill. The
Governor hopes it passes with the changes that were made. So I wanted
to let everybody know that I am in favor of the bill, and I appreciate
the changes that were made.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bryan, the Senator from
Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
I hardly know where to begin because so much misinformation has been
uttered about this piece of legislation. This is clearly a legislative
vessel that is flying under false colors. There is absolutely nothing
in this bill that says, look, it is going to be Yucca Mountain as
opposed to anything else. That decision, in terms of studying it, has
already been made. I regret that, but it doesn't alter the fact that
only Yucca Mountain is being considered and that process goes forward.
The bill has nothing to do with whether or not Yucca Mountain is going
to be the site that is going to be considered and studied over the next
few years, absolutely nothing. So vote against this bill.
With respect to the compensation issue, we have agreed for more than
a decade, and this Senator has personally offered legislation to
compensate the utilities. That is not an issue. We agree. This bill
would pass by unanimous consent if that was the only provision that was
in there. This Senator would be among the first to say that is fair.
What this is all about is trying to game the standards. That is what
we are talking about. By and large, in its original form, this bill
stripped out EPA. Now, games are still being played. Somehow it is
suggested that EPA is being unreasonable. EPA has set a standard of 15
millirems, the same one set at WIPP, the transuranic for nuclear waste.
In 1982, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted, Congress
thought EPA ought to be the one to make that determination. Now, is it
a fair, reasonable standard? Somehow this crazy myth has been spilled
out all over the floor that this is an unreasonable standard. The
National Academy of Sciences--and this is not a Nevada-based group; the
``N'' stands for National, not Nevada--has looked at the standards and
said, look, the range should be between 2 and 20 millirems, and it is
15.

Any Member of this Senate can defend a ``no'' vote on this
legislation on the basis that Yucca Mountain is going forward in the
study process. Nothing changes that. All we are saying is, in the
interest of fairness, don't play politics with the standards. And that
is what is occurring. All we are asking is that the health and safety
of Nevada be accorded the same protection that the good citizens of New
Mexico and every other place in America enjoy. So by moving this into
the next year, they are trying to play politics. Do you know what. The
very perverse result of all of this is that it is going to result in a
further delay, and that would be as a result of this legislation being
enacted.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to a few of the points
made in debate. The other Senator from Nevada also wishes to speak.
First, when my good friend from Wyoming made his comments, he made a
point that we hear a lot on the floor, which is that the people who are
opposed to this bill have offered no alternatives. That is not true. I
think anyone who has followed the course of this legislation in
committee knows that I offered an alternative in committee, which got a
significant number of votes, which I believe would have been a
substantial step forward. On each of the issues we are debating, I have
offered alternative language. So, clearly, that is not the case.
Second, on the issue about the Department of Energy making no
progress with the Yucca Mountain project, I don't think that is an
accurate or fair criticism at this point. Clearly, they have not done
all we wish had been done, but it is also true that Congress, most
years, has not provided the funding requested for this project.
The Department of Energy is on target to characterize the Yucca
Mountain facility. Five miles of tunnel have been built in the last few
years. Numerous test facilities have been built. Progress is being made
but not adequate progress. I am sure they are unhappy with the pace of
progress. Of course, this legislation contains a delay in the EPA's
ability to issue their standards. The take title is perhaps the part
that is most confusing because there seems to be an underlying belief
on the part of some Senators who have spoken that if we provide this
take title authority so that the Department of Energy can go in and
take the title and settle these lawsuits that are pending, somehow or
other that lessens the need for the Department of Energy to go ahead
and move the waste to Yucca Mountain or to any other central facility.
I don't see that myself. What Federal agency is going to want to
permanently be the owner and caretaker of nuclear waste in 80 different
locations? Clearly, DOE would not want that result. They would like to
resolve the pending lawsuits, take title to the property, move ahead as
quickly as possible to get the site characterized, and if it meets the
standard, then go ahead with it. So I don't think this take title thing
is what it is described to be.

On the land transfer issue, on which there has been some discussion,
there were no land transfers in the committee-reported bill. I think we
need to understand that. So there are no maps

[[Page S568]]

and there was no discussion about it in the committee because it wasn't
brought up there. Page 11 of the bill makes reference to ``maps dated
February 1, 2000, and on file with the Secretary of Energy.'' We can't
find any such maps. The Secretary of Energy can't find any such maps.
We don't know what they are talking about. There is real confusion
about the specifics of these land transfers.
The final point I will make on this--and I will defer to my
colleague, Senator Reid--is the chairman, understandably, in his
concluding remarks, said if you vote for this bill, we will put this
problem behind us. Mr. President, if that were true, I would be sorely
tempted to vote for this bill. The truth is, we can vote for this bill,
pass this bill, and the President can sign this bill, but not only are
the problems not behind us, our problems would be compounded.
Therefore, I will not be able to support the bill. I regret that we
will not pass something that does, in fact, put the problem behind us.
I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, when I practiced law, I
represented car dealers, and there were times when they got cars in
their inventory that simply were bad cars, lemons. There wasn't
anything they could do to fix them. They would take them into the shop
two, three, four times, and they turned out to be lemons. I represented
a car dealer who sold a car to someone and he said, ``They have a car
out in front of my place painted yellow that looks like a float; it is
a lemon.'' He said, ``You have to settle this case.''
That is what we have. This legislation is a lemon. Whatever the
esteemed chairman of the full committee tries to do, he can't make an
orange out of a lemon. This is bad legislation. The Senator from New
Mexico is known in the Senate as being a very thoughtful man. He has
tried very hard to get a piece of legislation that improves the process
for Yucca Mountain. Now, this situation has been amply described by
anybody who is willing to read this legislation as being a travesty.
This legislation doesn't help anything. It is opposed by the
environmental community, the President of the United States, the
Director of the EPA, and the Department of Energy Secretary. This is
bad legislation and it should be voted against.
Talking about the land in Nevada, nobody knows what that is. There
are about 74 million acres in Nevada. They are talking about maps that
don't exist. What the chairman has tried to do in this legislation is
satisfy one group of people and, in the process, he eliminates others.
For the first time in the history of this legislation, the utilities
are opposed to the States. The utilities wanted to get rid of this
nuclear waste. Now they own it more than they ever owned it. They will
be stuck with it forever if this legislation passes.
I think this legislation should be taken back to the drawing board to
see if anything can be done to improve it. In the meantime, at Yucca
Mountain the characterization is still taking place. I think we should
let the 1987 act stand for what is going to take place at Yucca
Mountain--not some cockamamie piece of legislation that is trying to
give the nuclear industry a reward they don't deserve.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the Nuclear
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). Specifically, I want to
explain why I will continue to oppose this legislation in its current
form.
Let me first express my grave concern about the process by which this
legislation has been developed over the last few days. My office
received a new version of this legislation, which eventually was
proposed as a substitute amendment, nearly every day last week. Closed
negotiations have continued even while the bill has been on the floor.
For those of us who have utilities in our states that are grappling
with nuclear waste storage questions, this made it nearly impossible to
analyze this bill on behalf of our constituents. The issues presented
in this legislation are serious policy issues, and our constituents
deserve better information.
I am principally opposed to this bill because it does little to
address the nuclear waste storage question in my home state of
Wisconsin. Wisconsinites want nuclear waste removed from our state and
stored in a permanent geologic repository out of state so that it has
no chance of coming back to Wisconsin. I opposed nuclear waste
legislation in the last Congress which sought to build large scale
interim storage facilities before the permanent storage site is ready
and would have jeopardized consideration of the permanent site. This
year's bill would have provided federal funds for on-site storage of
nuclear waste until the permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain was
ready to take our waste.
The substitute amendment stripped out the on-site storage provisions.
This bill now does nothing to address the waste situation at the
majority of Wisconsin's nuclear plants. The bill, as amended by the
substitute amendment, does contain a specific section which would
address the nuclear waste situation at the La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor, which is owned by Dairyland Power and has been shut down for
years. The Dairyland language is something that I have supported and
will continue to support, but I had hoped this legislation would be
able to extend similar relief to other Wisconsin utilities.
With the on-site storage provisions stripped out, the bill retains a
loosely knit collection of provisions that seem unlikely to have a
beneficial impact on the country's nuclear waste program. The bill
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's and the National Academy
of Sciences' concurrence in the radiation exposure standard that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is drafting--an entirely new
procedure. If those entities do not agree, the responsibility to set
the standard comes back to Congress. I am concerned that if those
entities cannot agree it is likely that Congress can not do much better
to resolve the issues.
One of my other concerns has always been the safety and security of
shipping nuclear materials from their current locations to a permanent
geologic storage site outside of the state. Obviously, there is a risk
that, during the transportation, accidents may occur. Although the
legislation provides for emergency response training in the
jurisdictions through which nuclear material would be transported, I
still feel that these provisions need to be strengthened to ensure that
state and local governments have the financial and equipment resources
they need to respond to accidents.
In conclusion, I cannot support legislation which purports to fix the
country's nuclear waste program and leaves Wisconsin so far behind. I
continue to remain hopeful that legislation in this area can be crafted
that can win my support.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the most recent version of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000. It advances the
process further, and it is essential that the promised and paid for
disposal of nuclear waste from Michigan proceed. There are a number of
provisions in this bill which are problematic and while I will vote to
advance this legislation, I will review the final product that comes
before the Senate.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last several days the Chairman of
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and the
Ranking Member, Senator Bingaman, have been working to come to an
agreement on legislation to resolve how our nation will provide long-
term storage for deadly nuclear waste that is currently stockpiled near
nuclear reactors around the country.
Despite many hours of hard work, an agreement was not reached. The
legislation before the Senate today will not ensure the safety of the
American public or deal with the critical issues of liability that
first led us to consider this legislation.
I would like to take a few moments this morning to explain why I will
be opposing the substitute amendment to S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste
Amendments Act of 2000.
As Senator Bingaman explained last night, this legislation was
proposed because the federal government was unable to meet its
obligation under the law to provide a long-term storage site for
nuclear waste. In 1982, Congress directed the Department of Energy to
begin accepting waste at a long-term storage site by 1998. This
deadline has not been met, and as a result, the taxpayers are facing
billions of dollars in potential liability.

[[Page S569]]

Originally, this bill would have allowed the Department to settle
these lawsuits by taking title to the waste in its current sites
pending completion of a long-term storage facility. This provision has
now been removed from the bill. As a result, this legislation does
nothing to relieve the taxpayers of the enormous bill they may have to
foot.
I am also deeply concerned by steps taken in the bill to undermine
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to set radiation
safety standards. EPA has currently proposed tough but reasonable
standards to protect groundwater and those living in the area. These
standards are consistent with a report of the National Academy of
Sciences issued in 1995.
However, this legislation prevents EPA from issuing final standards
until June 1, 2001. The clear expectation underlying this provision is
that a new president will be in office who will support weaker
standards than those currently proposed.
Mr. President, it is unacceptable to gamble with the health of
Americans who will be living near the long-term storage site. It is
very likely that waste will be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Nearby, there is a dairy farm and fields of crops that use groundwater
for irrigation. If we do not support tough safety standards, there is a
chance that radiation in the groundwater will end up in the water used
in these farms and for drinking by those who live there, putting public
health at risk.
Finally, I am concerned about an enormous potential write-off for
nuclear utilities in this bill. Currently, utilities pay into a Nuclear
Waste Fund to ensure that the Department of Energy has the resources it
needs to pay for long-term storage. This bill caps the amount that must
be paid by utilities, setting up the taxpayer to fund whatever costs
remain.
We need to do a better job of protecting the safety of the American
public and the taxpayers from the bottomless liability that may result
from this legislation. For these reasons, I will oppose this bill.
Finally, I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his hard work on this
issue, and Senators Reid and Bryan. While this bill today is not yet
satisfactory, it is significantly better than those we have seen in the
past. It is largely thanks to the efforts of these Senators that these
changes have been made.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1287, a bill to
provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel, pending completion of
the permanent nuclear waste repository.
I also want to thank Senator Craig and Senator Murkowski for their
tireless efforts to move forward on legislation to address the issue of
disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
The federal government made a commitment to the nation's nuclear
utilities that it would build a permanent repository to dispose of
commercial spent nuclear fuel. By law, the repository was supposed to
be ready to accept nuclear waste by 1998.
Six billion dollars later, the Department of Energy effort to build a
repository is years behind schedule and mired in political warfare.
As a result of these delays, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ruled that the DOE had failed to meet its legal
obligations and ordered the Department to pay contractual damages to
the nuclear utilities.
If the current situation is allowed to continue, the utilities will
be paying twice. They have already contributed to the nuclear waste
fund to build the repository. Without this legislation, they will
continue to pay for the repository and on site storage for waste the
federal government said it would take.
As a result of national defense and research activities, the federal
government itself has generated thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste. This waste continues to be monitored and stored
at federal sites across the country, including the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, at significant cost. This
waste is also waiting to be sent to a permanent repository.
The financial resources that are necessary to continuously store,
monitor, and maintain this fuel and waste are overwhelming and could be
used for other constructive purposes by the government and utilities
instead of watching and waiting as has been the past practice.
This bill offers an option for relief to utilities where the
Department of Energy could take title to the fuel and transport it to
the repository site. Different from past legislation, this bill
identifies that spent fuel storage at the repository site, in advance
of fuel placement in a repository, cannot occur until construction of
the repository has been authorized.
This bill is particularly important to the State of Idaho because of
the 1995 Settlement Agreement. This agreement was entered into in
Federal court. It was agreed to by the Departments of Energy and Navy
and the State of Idaho. One of the requirements is to remove all spent
fuel from Idaho by 2035. A repository or interim storage site is
essential for the parties to comply with the agreement.
The logical location for the permanent repository is Yucca Mountain.
It has been designated by Congress as the only site for study. It is
located on dry Federal desert land. It is adjacent to the Nation's
nuclear testing site where hundreds of nuclear weapons have been
exploded.
The bill establishes a schedule for decisions on the adequacy of
Yucca Mountain as a repository which will allow the parties to comply
with the Idaho Settlement Agreement. The bill also deletes the 70,000
metric ton uranium cap which had been imposed on the repository.
Removal of this cap allows one geological repository to be capable of
handling the nation's inventory of spent fuel and high-level waste
instead of multiple repositories.
The bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and National
Academy of Sciences to give input on the scientific validity and
protection of the public health and safety provided by the proposed
Environmental Protection Agency radiation standard. The Environmental
Protection Agency maintains standard setting authority, cannot set a
standard until June 1, 2001, and is not bound to accept or even
consider the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or National Academy of
Sciences input. This compromise only delays the setting of a radiation
standard by the Environmental Protection Agency and delays the date by
when the Secretary of Energy will have an established radiation
standard to work to. Although I dislike the compromise that was reached
I understand that a compromise needed to be made to move this important
legislation forward.
Support of this bill is the right thing to do for the country.
Idaho is one of several states where defense and DOE spent nuclear
fuel and high level waste are stored; other major states include
Washington, South Carolina, and New York.
There are over 70 commercial nuclear utilities that are storing spent
nuclear fuel because the federal government has not lived up to its
contract.
Storage facilities at these locations are filling up quickly, will
not last forever, and will be expensive to monitor and maintain.
The U.S. receives 20 percent of its electricity capacity from nuclear
power. There are no other emission free alternative power generating
technologies that could replace this capacity if opponents are
successful in shutting down nuclear power. Many of the issues
associated with spent nuclear fuel are political, not technical.
Nuclear fuel has been moved safely across this country and around the
world for nearly forty years. The ``mobile Chernobyl'' scare tactics
are a myth.
Movement needs to continue on a permanent repository and relief needs
to be provided for nuclear utilities. This bill provides forward
momentum and relief.
I would have preferred to see the bill go further by establishing an
interim storage facility at the Nevada Test Site and vesting standard
setting authority with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Unfortunately, the Congress has been unable to enact this type of
legislation because of the threat of a presidential veto. While I would
have preferred to vote in support of a stronger bill, I understand why
Senator Murkowski has made concessions to the other side to try to move
this legislation forward.
This is an important piece of legislation which will show the
American people that we can address the issue of nuclear waste in a way
that is technically and environmentally sound.

[[Page S570]]

I urge my colleagues to vote to support enactment of this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity
before we vote to recognize a member of the Senate staff who has
contributed a lot to the nuclear waste debate over the years. That
person is Joe Barry, who has worked for Senator Bryan for many years,
and who apparently has actually had other duties not related to nuclear
waste, as well. He is a tremendous professional who has helped keep the
debate in the Senate on this issue on a high level of technical
accuracy. I understand that he will be leaving for a position in the
private sector in Boston when we break for this recess. Senators don't
always agree with each other in debate. The search for relevant and
accurate information and perspectives is essential to the legislative
process, and is greatly helped when Members have highly competent
professional staff like Joe. We will miss him in this chamber, and I
would like to extend my personal best wishes to him for great success
in the future.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support S. 1287,
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
I cannot support this bill because it fails to meet the safety
concerns of our local communities regarding the hazards of nuclear
waste. I cannot support this bill because it poses an unacceptable
danger to the lives and health of the thousands of Minnesotans and
millions of Americans who live near shipment routes.
By dramatically increasing the number of hazardous shipments through
local communities, S. 1287 increases the risk of transportation
accidents involving nuclear waste and could put public health and
safety in jeopardy. This legislation would mean an additional 800
shipments in the first two years, growing to about 1,800 shipments
annually by the fifth year. These shipments would continue for at least
25 years, traveling within half a mile of 50 million Americans.
Under this legislation, highly dangerous nuclear waste would be
shipped through 40 or more states, including my own state of Minnesota,
regardless of whether it is safe for our local communities, and without
their input. Without reliable and efficient emergency response
safeguards for our local communities, S. 1287 fails to protect local
communities from even a small accident during the shipment of nuclear
waste.
Recently, DOE projected that a nuclear waste transportation accident
in a rural area with even a small release of radioactive material would
contaminate 42 square miles. DOE also estimated that it would take 460
days to clean up such an accident, at a cost of $620 million. The
safety record of nuclear waste transportation should give us pause.
Between 1964 and 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) made
approximately 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel. During this time,
there were 47 safety incidents involving nuclear shipments, including 6
accidents.
Furthermore, S. 1287 undermines the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) standard-setting process. It would delay the EPA's existing
statutory authority to adopt health and safety standards to protect
local communities from the release of radioactive materials. This delay
stands in fundamental contradiction to the claimed urgency of this
legislation. It also highlights the misplaced priorities of S. 1287,
with an unacceptable emphasis on disposal at any cost, regardless of
whether the safety and health of local communities have been adequately
provided for.
It is especially regrettable that S. 1287 does not resolve our
dilemma regarding the future of nuclear waste storage. Nobody,
including me, wants this waste to stay onsite forever, but we need a
safe and responsible solution for disposal of the waste we have
created. As we head into the 21st century, we urgently need to develop
a policy that protects the health and safety of local communities and
all Americans. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that requirement.
S. 1287 is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and a regression
from past legislative efforts in this area. And for that reason I am
voting against it.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose S. 1287 and the
substitute amendment being offered. This is bad policy and should be
rejected by the Senate.
Protecting the health and safety of American citizens should be our
highest priority in evaluating the disposal of our nuclear waste. In
order to do this, all decisions must be made based on science, not
politics. This legislation does not do that. Under the cover of a
``compromise'' bill, this legislation is the latest attempt to pre-empt
science and legislate the scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, as a high-level nuclear waste dump.
Instead of finding a repository that meets our health and safety
standards established in law, this legislation attempts to weaken our
health and safety standards to meet the repository. I cannot and will
not support such an action.
For many years we have debated the suitability of a high-level
radioactive waste dump site at Yucca Mountain. And for years, I have
been down on this Senate floor with my colleagues from Nevada fighting
to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada. But I know
that Yucca Mountain is not just a Nevada issue, it is a national
issue--and more important to me, it seriously and directly affects my
State of California.
Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border and the
Death Valley National Park. Development of this site has the potential
to contaminate California's groundwater and poses unnecessary threats
to the health and safety of Californians due to possible transportation
accidents from shipping high-level nuclear waste through Inyo, San
Bernardino and neighboring California counties.
Since its inception as a National Monument in 1933, the federal
government has invested more than $600 million in the Death Valley
National Park. The Park receives over 1.4 million visitors every year.
Furthermore, the communities surrounding the park are economically
dependent on tourism. The income generated by the presence of the Park
exceeds $125 million per year. The Park has been the most significant
element in the sustainable growth of the tourist industry in the Mojave
Desert. The Park is committed to sustainable growth of jobs and
infrastructure in contrast to the traditional boom-and-dust desert
economy.
Scientific studies show that a significant part of the regional
groundwater aquifer surrounding Yucca Mountain discharges in Death
Valley because the valley is down-gradient of areas to the east. If the
groundwater at Death Valley is contaminated, that will be the demise of
the Park and the surrounding communities. The long-term viability of
fish, wildlife and human populations in the area are largely dependent
on water from this aquifer. The vast majority of the Park's visitors
rely on services and facilities at the park headquarters near Furnace
Creek. These facilities are all dependent upon the groundwater aquifer
that flows under or near Yucca Mountain. And, unfortunately, there is
no alternative water source that can support the visitor facilities and
wildlife resources.
Water is life in the desert. Water quality must be preserved for the
viability of Death Valley National Park and the dependent tourism
industry.
I hope my colleagues agree that we should not threaten these
visitors, this natural treasure, and our huge financial investment with
incomplete science and unnecessary actions. The potential loss is just
too great.
It has been extremely difficult to get the Energy Department to
accept California's connection to the site. Although DOE now recognizes
Inyo County, California as an Affected Unit of Local Government under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it did so reluctantly after a successful
lawsuit by the county that resulted in DOE granting affected unit
status in 1991. Inyo is the only county in California that is now
listed. Fortunately, in response to a letter that I sent to the Energy
Department, a hearing will be schedule in San Bernardino County to
discuss the potential threat of transportation routes through the
county. But my State's concerns are not being fully addressed. I ask
unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Richardson and his
response be included in the Record.
As an Affected Unit of Local Government, Inyo County receives Federal
appropriations to monitor the Yucca

[[Page S571]]

Mountain project. The primary thrust of Inyo County's monitoring
program has been to demonstrate the hydrologic connection between the
aquifer underlying Yucca Mountain and the discharge points in Death
Valley National Park and surrounding communities.
In addition to the groundwater concerns, my State is extremely
concerned about the increased transportation of high level radioactive
waste that will be shipped through our State as a result of this bill.
Despite my objections, the Department of Energy has already started to
ship low-level nuclear waste through Inyo County to the Nevada Test
Site. Inyo and San Bernardino are especially concerned because of the
lack of thorough studies on the transportation routes.
The State of California has also been very involved in this issue.
The California Energy Commission's comments on the Yucca Mountain
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement express the State's
serious concerns over the possible groundwater contamination and the
lack of adequate analysis of proper transportation routes. In fact, the
Western Governor's Association has repeatedly asked the Energy
Department to complete a more detailed and thorough analysis of the
transportation routes to Yucca Mountain to no avail.
While the legislation that we are debating today is an improvement
from bills introduced and debated in the past, it still must be
stopped. This legislation would undermine the regulatory framework
authorized in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and implemented by
the EPA and DOE.
The EPA was directed by Congress to establish a radiation exposure
standard for Yucca Mountain. The EPA is in the process of completing
that requirement. The draft standards were issued last August and the
EPA is currently considering all comments on the proposal. The draft
standard includes a separate--and much needed--groundwater standard for
the repository that must meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The legislation we are discussing today prevents the Clinton
Administration from acting in a timely manner to protect public health.
However, once this Administration leaves office, the EPA standards
could move forward. Where is the science in that?
This provision flies in the face of science and the fundamental
principle of protecting public health and safety first and foremost.
I understand that a 1995 study by the Department of Energy showed
that the radiation at Yucca Mountain would be much higher than allowed
under current regulations. In fact, the DOE study finds that maximum
doses at the site would be 50 rem per year.
If, like me, you are not a scientist, let me put that number into
perspective for you. That is like having approximately 5,000 chest x-
rays annually. Furthermore, it is about 2000 times higher than what the
public is currently permitted to receive under an operating powerplant
under current EPA regulations. That dose is sufficient to produce
approximately 100 percent probability of dying of cancer under NRC and
DOE current risk estimates. Virtually everyone exposed to that dose
would die of cancer. So rather than go back and try to design a better
repository to meet the standards, we are on this floor to change the
standards to meet the repository.
Finally, the one provision in S. 1287 that most people could agree on
was stripped from this substitute amendment. That provision would have
allowed the Energy Secretary to take title to the waste that is
currently being stored on-site in order to resolve the liability issue.
The alleged reason for moving this legislation was to deal with the
liability issue that was created by a successful lawsuit from the
utilities against the Energy Department. The utilities claimed that the
Energy Department was not meeting its obligations under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act to store this waste. And the utilities won. Senator
Murkowski and Secretary Richardson seemed to agree that the best way to
resolve this issue was to have the Energy Department take title to the
waste at the utilities. That was the reason for moving a bill. Now,
that provision is gone, and therefore the reason to move this bill is
gone.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this unnecessary
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that correspondence in regard to this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC, January 12, 2000.
Hon. Bill Richardson,
Secretary of Energy, James Forrestal Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing about the environmental
impact report being prepared for the proposed transfer of
radioactive material to Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas. More
specifically, I am writing about the concerns of the San
Bernardino Board of Supervisors that the County of San
Bernardino has received less than adequate information about
the process.
Though radioactive material being transported to Yucca
Mountain in Nevada will be transported within San Bernardino
County, there has been no hearing on the proposal within the
County. Further, San Bernardino County officials allege that
they have received no formal notice of hearings held outside
the county or other notices of the environmental process.
I understand that other hearings were recently added to the
Yucca Mountain review process. This is a request that you
schedule a further hearing within San Bernardino County. I am
certain that San Bernardino County officials will be happy to
help arrange such a hearing. Thank you for your attention to
this matter. Please respond to me through my San Bernardino
office.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator.
____

Secretary of Energy,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2000.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your letter of January
12, 2000, regarding the environmental impact report being
prepared for the proposed transfer of radioactive material to
Yucca Mountain.
I am sensitive to your concerns and the concerns of your
constituents in San Bernardino County regarding their
involvement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada. I have added an additional public hearing in
the city of San Bernardino. The hearing will be held prior to
the end of the comment period for the Draft EIS, which has
been extended until February 28, 2000. A Federal Register
Notice announcing the date and location of this public
hearing is forthcoming.
The Department is making every effort to address the
public's interest in this document. This past December, three
additional hearings were scheduled to include locations in
the Midwest, including Lincoln, Nebraska; Cleveland, Ohio;
and Chicago, Illinois. With the inclusion of an additional
hearing in your State, the Department will have conducted a
total of 21 hearings, 11 throughout the country and 10 in the
State of Nevada. The Department is striving to ensure that
the public has ample opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS.
I hope the additional hearing in California addresses your
concerns and those of your constituents.
If you have any questions or additional concerns, please
call me or have a member of your staff contact John C.
Angell, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, at 202-586-5450.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Richardson.
____

Board of Supervisors

County of San Bernardino,

San Bernardino, CA, January 12, 2000.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: The Board of Supervisors unanimously
approved [a] resolution at our meeting yesterday. It
expresses our substantial concern over the lack of
notification from the Department of Energy with regard to
their plans to transport thousands of shipments of high-level
radioactive waste through the major cities of our County.
The only hearing held in this State took place in a remote
area hundreds of miles from our major population centers. In
addition we were not provided with any official notification
of the Issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement nor
were we provided a copy of same.
While we understand that transportation and storage/
disposal of this material is essential for operation of
various facilities, it is only appropriate that the
jurisdictions which will be recipient of the majority of
these shipments be given notice and response opportunities.
We ask for your strong support for our request to the
Department of Energy for full disclosure, additional time for
response and review, and for a public hearing to be held in
our area. The hearing should be held somewhere near the
population centers which will be subject to these shipments
and the potential dangers imposed thereby.
We appreciate your serious consideration of this request.
Sincerely.
Jerry Eaves,
Supervisor, Fifth District.

[[Page S572]]

____
County of Ventura,
February 1, 2000.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to reiterate the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors' opposition to S. 1287, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1999, which, as currently
written, would allow spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste
to be transported through Ventura County.
The Board of Supervisors endorses the development of a
national policy for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
However, the Board opposes transporting these material
through Ventura County. County officials and residents are
concerned about the proximity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County and the vulnerability
to potential disasters related to the transportation of
hazardous materials through the community, which poses
serious health and safety risks to County residents.
Please vote against S. 1287 unless it is amended to
prohibit the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste through Ventura County and other heavily
populated areas.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas P. Walters,
Washington Representative.
____

County of Inyo,

Independence, CA, February 1, 2000.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer, I am writing to express concern with S.
1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999. S.
1287 proposes to abandon current specific DOE guidelines for
determining the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada (for
siting of a nuclear waste repository) in lieu of less-
demanding, generalized criteria. S. 1287 also removes the
role of the Environmental Protection Agency from determining
the human health standard to which repository design and
operations should be held.
S. 1287, as it currently stands, would replace DOE's
current and specific site suitability criteria (10 CFR 960--
adopted in 1986 after considerable public input) with a
generalized ``total system performance assessment'' approach
(proposed in 10 CFR 963) which does not require the site to
meet specific criteria with regard to site geology and
hydrology or waste packet performance. Replacement of the
current site suitability criteria by 10 CFR 963 would reduce
the likelihood that the repository would be designed and
constructed using the best available technology. Individual
components of the repository system could be less than
optimal in design and performance if computer modeling of the
design showed it capable of meeting NRC's less-demanding
standard. Given the significant long-term risk that
development of the repository places on California
populations and resources, any compromises on repository
design, operations or materials cannot be tolerated.
S. 1287 allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set a
standard for protection of the public from radiological
exposure associated with development of the repository. The
power to set a standard for the Yucca Mountain project
rightfully belongs with the EPA in its traditional role of
setting health standards for Federal projects. In our recent
response to EPA's proposed radiological health standard for
the repository, Inyo County stated its strong support for EPA
authority over the project and for use of a standard which
focuses on maintaining the safety of groundwater in the Yucca
Mountain-Amargosa Valley-Death Valley region.
Based on these considerations, S. 1287 will not provide
adequate protection for Inyo County resources or citizens. We
hope that the provisions in the bill for setting repository
standards and for changing the site suitability guidelines
will be deleted.
We appreciate your continued support of Inyo County's
efforts to safeguard the health and safety of its citizens.
Sincerely,
Michael Dorame,
Supervisor, Fifth District, County of Inyo.
____

California Energy Commission,

Sacramento, CA, February 7, 2000.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: We have reviewed S. 1287 (Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2000) (NWPA) and offer the following
comments.
The State of California, including thirteen California
agencies, has reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca
Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. This review,
coordinated by the California Energy Commission, identified
major areas of deficiencies and scientific uncertainties in
the DEIS regarding potential transportation and groundwater
impacts in California from the repository. In light of these
deficiencies and uncertainties, there are serious questions
whether a decision should/can be made on the Yucca Mt. site's
suitability in time for shipments to begin in 2007, as
required by S. 1287.
These deficiencies and uncertainties include the need for
better data and more realistic models to evaluate groundwater
flow and potential radionuclide migration toward regional
groundwater supplies in eastern California. In addition,
there are major scientific uncertainties regarding key
variables affecting how well geologic and engineered barriers
at the repository can isolate the wastes from the
environment. For example, there is considerable uncertainty
regarding waste package corrosion rates, potential water
seepage through the walls of the repository, groundwater
levels and flow beneath the repository, and the potential
impact on California aquifers from the potential migration of
radionuclides from the repository. California is concerned
about these uncertainties and deficiencies in studies of the
Yucca Mt. project and the serious lack of progress in DOE's
developing transportation plans for shipments to the
repository.
Potential major impacts in California from the proposed
repository include: (1) transportation impacts, (2) potential
radionuclide contamination of groundwater in the Death Valley
region, and (3) impacts on wildlife, natural habitat and
public parks along shipment corridors and from groundwater
contamination. Transportation is the single area of the
proposed Yucca Mt. project that will affect the most people
across the United States, since the shipments will be
traveling cross-country on the nation's highways and
railways. California is a major generator of spent nuclear
fuel and currently stores this waste at four operating
commercial nuclear power reactors, three commercial reactors
being decommissioned, and at five research reactor locations
throughout the State. Under current plans, spent nuclear fuel
shipments from California reactors will begin the first year
of shipments to a repository or storage facility.
In addition to the spent fuel generated in California, a
major portion of the shipments from other states to the Yucca
Mountain site could be routed through California. This
concern was elevated recently when DOE decided, over the
objections of California and Inyo and San Bernardino
Counties, to reroute through southeastern California, along
California Route 127, thousands of low-level waste shipments
from eastern states to the Nevada Test Site, in order to
avoid nuclear waste shipments through Las Vegas and over
Hoover Dam. We objected to DOE's rerouting these shipments
over California Route 127 because this roadway was not
engineered for such large volumes of heavy truck traffic,
lacks timely emergency response capability, is heavily
traveled by tourists, and is subject to periodic flash
flooding. We are concerned that S. 1287, by requiring that
shipments minimize transport through heavily populated areas,
could force NWPA shipments onto roadways in California, such
as State Route 127, that are not suitable for such shipments.
The massive scale of these shipments to the repository or
interim storage site will be unprecedented. Nevada's
preliminary estimates of potential legal-weight truck
shipments to Yucca Mountain show that an estimated 74,000
truck shipments, about three-fourths of the total, could
traverse southern California under DOE's ``mostly truck''
scenario. Shipments could average five truck shipments daily
through California during the 39-year time period of waste
emplacement. Under a mixed truck and rail scenario,
California could receive an average of two truck shipments
per day and 4-5 rail shipments per week for 39 years. Under a
``best case'' scenario that assumes the use of large rail
shipping containers, Nevada estimates there could be more
than 26,000 truck shipments and 9,800 shipments through
California to the repository.
We are concerned that S. 1287 would require that NWPA
shipments begin prematurely before the necessary studies
determining the site's suitability have been completed and
before the transportation impacts of this decision have been
fully evaluated. S. 1287 accelerates the schedule for the
repository by requiring shipments to begin at the earliest
practicable date and no later than January 31, 2007. In
contrast, DOE has been planning for shipments to begin in
2010, a date considered by many to be overly optimistic.
Shipping waste to a site before the necessary scientific
evaluations of the site have been completed and before route-
specific transportation impacts have been fully evaluated
could have costly results. The DOE nuclear weapons complex
has many examples of inappropriate sites where expediency has
created a legacy of very costly waste clean-up, e.g.,
Hanford, Washington. The use of methods that were not fully
tested for the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes has
resulted in contaminants from these wastes leaking into the
environment. Transporting waste to a site, as mandated by S.
1287, before the appropriate analyses are completed could
create a ``de facto'' high-level waste repository in
perpetuity with unknown and potentially serious long-term
public and environmental consequences.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Laurie,
Commissioner and State Liaison Officer to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

why nuclear waste won't go to south carolina

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to inquire of the manager whether it is
possible for any spent nuclear fuel to go to South Carolina under the
provisions of Section 102, ``Backup Storage Capacity'' of the manager's
substitute amendment.

[[Page S573]]

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely not. Spent nuclear fuel cannot go to South
Carolina under the specific terms of the amendment's Backup Storage
Capacity provisions, which states that the government shall: ``* * *
transport such spent fuel to, and store such spent fuel at, the
repository site. * * *'' That site is Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the manager.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the remaining time on this
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as this debate comes to an end, I think
it appropriate to respond to my friend from New Mexico relative to what
I understand he said--that he had not seen a real letter from the
Governors opposing taking title. I don't know whether the White House
will not make that available, but we have it here. I will be happy to
share it with him. I will put it in the Record because it shows all the
signatures of all the Governors:
The Honorable Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont; the Honorable Jeb
Bush, Governor of Florida; the Honorable Angus King, Jr., Governor of
Maine; the Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon; the Honorable
Jeanne Shaheen, Governor of New Hampshire; the Honorable Jesse Ventura,
Governor of Minnesota; and the Honorable Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa.
There are more coming, I am told. I hope we can put that particular
criticism to rest.
This is not an imaginary letter. This a letter from the Governors
objecting, if you will, to the situation of leaving the waste in their
States for the specific reason that they don't trust the Federal
Government. The reason they do not trust the Federal Government is the
Federal Government has not performed on its contract after taking $15
billion from the ratepayers to take the waste. They are fearful that
the waste will stay in their States under the control of the Federal
Government. That is a legitimate concern.
Again, I refer to the chart of where that waste is. It is in those 40
States. It is in 40 States, and each Member is going to have to respond
as to why they voted to leave that waste in their State.
We have had questions brought up about the land in Nevada. It is kind
of fuzzy because this is beneficial to Nevada. Now they are saying they
did not have any notice and they don't have the maps. The maps are in
our office. We have them for the counties. I am sure the minority could
get them. I am sure the two Senators from Nevada could get the maps of
their own counties. We have them in our office, in fact, and I will try
to get them in the Record so they can see them.
As far as the land transfer is concerned, it has always been in
previous bills. These are smokescreens. Our friends from Nevada are
trying to explain why this isn't a good deal. They wanted it. It is
there. Now they are saying: Well, just wait a minute; we don't have the
facts. We have them. They are there and available for anybody. The land
transfer is authorized in the previous bills. Let's not beat around the
bush.
In the remaining time I have, I want to highlight what this bill
really accomplishes.
I think the minority ranking member would recognize that we have
tried to work with him on his list of alternatives. We addressed his
concern on the interim storage. Our bill uses the WIPP transportation
model. EPA has the sole authority to set the standard. We took out the
international collaboration in transmutation which they wanted. We
couldn't take everything, but we certainly tried.
This is a valuable piece of legislation as it stands because we have
in this substitute dropped the interim storage. Isn't this kind of
ironic? We dropped the interim storage. The administration was opposed
to the interim storage in Nevada. The idea was that we could move this
stuff out at a critical time and put it out there. They said: No, we
can't do that until Yucca is finalized--until it is finally licensed.
But now they are doing it twice. They are having it both ways. They are
saying we will just leave it in the State. Then it becomes interim in
the State. These Governors are smart enough to figure it out. I hope
every Member of this body is because it is a flimflam. That is just
what it is.

The administration wants to have it both ways. They do not want
interim storage. They want the interim storage in the States. It drops
interim storage.
It requires Congress to approve any increase in fees to protect the
consumer. It sets schedules for development of a repository. It
authorizes backup storage at the repository for any spent fuel that the
utilities can't store on site. It allows the EPA to set radiation
standards after June 1, 2001; prior to that consultation only with NAS
and NRC, to ensure that any standard is the best science available.
What in the world is wrong with that?
It authorizes settlement agreements for outstanding litigation. It
requires an election to settle within 180 days as requested by the
administration. In other words, it brings them together.
Finally, it transfers 76,000 acres.
Let me conclude by saying that each Member is going to have to
respond as to why they left this waste in their State if they don't
support this bill. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that it is
time to bring this matter to an end. Let's support the legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, let me respond to the map issue. I think the Senator
from Alaska characterized it as ``flimflam.'' That is what this
legislation is. As recently as yesterday, in requesting the maps, they
had none. The only thing they have is these notes right here. I ask
unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

payments to local counties eliminated

Annual payments prior to first receipt of fuel: 2.5
million/year $12.5.
Upon 1st fuel receipt: 5 million/one time 5.0.
Annual payments after 1st receipt until closure: $5
million/year (2007-2042 125 million.)
Total--Over 140 million up to 2042 then 5 million/year
after that.

land conveyances retained

Total of: 76,000 acres.
46,000 to Nye County.
30,000 to Lincoln County.
For a variety of uses: For example--
City of Caliente:
Municipal landfill (240 acres).
Community growth (2,640 acres).
Community recreation (800 acres).
Lincoln County
Community Growth:
Pioche--2,080 acres.
Panaca--2,240 acres.
Rachel--1,280 acres.
Alamo--1,920 acres.
These lands had been previously identified by BLM as
available for disposal.
Towns:
Beatty--3,400 acres.
Ione--1,280 acres.
Manhattan--750 acres.
Round Mountain/Smokey Valley--11,300 acres.
Tonopah--11,500 acres.
Total estimated 28,230 acres.
Towns:
Amargosa--2,700 acres.
Pahrump--14,750 acres.
Total estimated 17,450 acres.
BLM/Grand Total: 45,680 acres.
Western Members should be pleased about this kind of
transfer of public lands from federal ownership.
There are lots of benefits to doing these kinds of
transfers:
Long term financial benefits are:
Decrease federal mgmt costs;
Increase State & local benefits;
The land can now be used for income providing activities.
Such transfers help consolidate land ownership and that
leads to a more cost-effective and environmentally sound
ecosystem management.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, there are no maps.
That will give you some indication of what a shoddy, moving target
this has been as we have tried to debate and expand on it. It is simply
indefensible public policy.
I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take the remaining time to
commend our chairman, Senator Murkowski, for his heroic efforts in
trying

[[Page S574]]

to come up with legislation that would be constructive and deal with
this problem. This is not an easy issue to resolve. There are many
points of view.
First, the subject is complex. The history of the legislation is
certainly varied and difficult.
I certainly believe the chairman has worked in good faith to try to
come up with a solution. As I stated several times this morning, I do
not believe he has been successful in that regard.
I am not able to support the bill.
I think there is a lot of confusion that has surrounded our debate
here on the floor. As to the whole notion that the Governors are
fearful that waste would wind up remaining in their States if they did
not drop this take title provision, I can say if they are worried that
waste will remain, they have good grounds to be worried because it is
going to remain in their States. Under current law, and under this
legislation, if this legislation becomes law, the waste will remain in
their States. The only question is, who is going to have ownership and
responsibility for that waste.
We had proposed that the Department of Energy be given ownership and
responsibility. We believe that would, if anything, desensitize the
Department to move ahead more quickly on Yucca Mountain. I believe that
is clearly the case.
The notion that anybody who opposes this bill is going to have to
explain why they want waste to remain in their States is not the issue
on which we are voting. Waste is going to remain in each of the States
where it is now located unless and until we get the Yucca Mountain site
characterized. I hope we do that quickly. I am doing all I can to
support doing that quickly. I believe the waste should be moved to a
permanent repository. I think that is clearly where we need to head.
But the notion that this problem is going to be somehow solved by
passing this bill is just not supported by anything. There is no logic
to that.
We can pass this bill. This bill can be signed by the President. You
can wind up 5 years from now trying to explain to people in your State
why the waste is still sitting there because it is going to be there in
5 years regardless.
I think people need to understand that there is much less here than
meets the eye. As far as this legislation is concerned, anyone who
thinks this legislation is going to put any problem behind them is
going to be sorely disappointed down the road. In fact, I think the
problems will be compounded if we enact this legislation and it were to
become law.

I urge colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the hour of 11 a.m. having arrived, the substitute amendment,
No. 2808, is agreed to.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended,
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''--
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

YEAS--64

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--34

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Kennedy
McCain

The bill (S. 1287), as amended, was passed, as follows:

S. 1287

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``contract holder'' means a party to a
contract with the Secretary of Energy for the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste entered
into pursuant to section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)); and
(2) the terms ``Administrator'', ``civilian nuclear power
reactor'', ``Commission'', ``Department'', ``disposal'',
``high-level radioactive waste'', ``Indian tribe'',
``repository'', ``reservation'', ``Secretary'', ``spent
nuclear fuel'', ``State'', ``storage'', ``Waste Fund'', and
``Yucca Mountain site'' shall have the meanings given such
terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(42 U.S.C. 10101).

TITLE I--STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

SEC. 101. PROGRAM SCHEDULE.

(a) In General.--The President, the Secretary, and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall carry out their duties
under this Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 by
the earliest practicable date consistent with the public
interest and applicable provisions of law.
(b) Milestones.--(1) The Secretary shall make a final
decision whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for
development of the repository to the President by December
31, 2001;
(2) The President shall make a final decision whether to
recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development of the
repository to the Congress by March 31, 2002;
(3) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall make a final
decision whether to authorize construction of the repository
by January 31, 2006; and
(4) As provided in subsection (c), the Secretary shall
begin receiving waste at the repository site at the earliest
practicable date and no later than eighteen months after
receiving construction authorization from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
(c) Receipt Facilities.--(1) As part of the submission of
an application for a construction authorization pursuant to
section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10134(b)), the Secretary shall apply to the Commission
to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste at surface facilities within the geologic
repository operations area for the receipt, handling,
packaging, and storage prior to emplacement.
(2) As part of the issuance of the construction
authorization under section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, the Commission shall authorize
construction of surface facilities described in subsection
(c)(1) and the receipt and possession of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste at such surface facilities
within the geologic repository operations area for the
purposes in subsection (c)(1), in accordance with such
standards as the Commission finds are necessary to protect
the public health and safety.

SEC. 102. BACKUP STORAGE CAPACITY.

(a) Subject to section 105(d), the Secretary shall enter
into a contract under this subsection with any person
generating or owning spent nuclear fuel that meets the
requirements of section 135(b)(1) (A) and (B) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10155(b)(1) (A) and (B))
to--
(1) take title at the civilian nuclear power reactor site
to such amounts of spent nuclear fuel from the civilian
nuclear power reactor as the Commission determines cannot be
stored onsite; and
(2) transport such spent nuclear fuel to, and store such
spent nuclear fuel at, the repository site after the
Commission has authorized construction of the repository
without regard to the Secretary's Acceptance Priority Ranking
report or Annual Capacity report.

SEC. 103. REPOSITORY LICENSING.

(a) Adoption of Standards.--Notwithstanding the time
schedule in section 801(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of
1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note), the Administrator shall not
publish or adopt public health and safety standards for the
protection of the public from releases from radioactive
materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the
Yucca Mountain site--
(1) except in accordance with this section; and
(2) before June 1, 2001.

[[Page S575]]

(b) Consultation and Reports to Congress.--(1) Not later
than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall provide the Commission and the National
Academy of Sciences--
(A) a detailed written comparison of the provisions of the
proposed Environmental Protection Standards for Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, published in the Federal Register on August
27, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 46,975) with the recommendations made
by the National Academy of Sciences in its report, Technical
Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, pursuant to section
801(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141
note); and
(B) the scientific basis for the proposed rule.
(2) Not later than April 1, 2001, the Commission and the
National Academy of Sciences shall, based on the proposed
rule and the information provided by the Administrator under
paragraph (1), each submit a report to Congress on whether
the proposed rule--
(A) is consistent with section 801(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note);
(B) provide a reasonably expectation that the public health
and safety and the environment will be adequately protected
from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel disposed of in the repository;
(C) is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific
and technical information concerning the need for, and
consequences of, the rule; and
(D) imposes the least burden, consistent with obtaining the
regulatory objective of protecting the public health and
safety and the environment.
(3) In the event that either the Commission or the National
Academy of Sciences finds that the proposed rule does not
meet one or more of the criteria listed in paragraph (2), it
shall notify the Administrator not later than April 1, 2001
of its finding and the basis for such finding.
(c) Application of Congressional Review Procedures.--Any
final rule promulgated under section 801(a)(1) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note) shall be treated as
a major rule for purposes of chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, and shall be subject to all the requirements and
procedures pertaining to a major rule in such chapter.
(d) Capacity.--Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended by striking ``The
Commission decision approving the first such application . .
.'' through the period at the end of the sentence.

SEC. 104. NUCLEAR WASTE FEE.

The last sentence of section 302(a)(4) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)(4)) is amended to read
as follows: ``The adjusted fee proposed by the Secretary
shall be effective upon enactment of a joint resolution or
other provision of law specifically approving the adjusted
fee.''.

SEC. 105. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary may, upon the request of any
person with whom he has entered into a contract under section
302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(a)), enter into a settlement agreement with the
contract holder to--
(1) relieve any harm caused by the Secretary's failure to
meet the Department's commitment, or
(2) settle any legal claims against the United States
arising out of such failure.
(b) Types of Relief.--Pursuant to a settlement agreement
entered into under this section, the Secretary may--
(1) provide spent nuclear fuel storage casks to the
contract holder;
(2) compensate the contract holder for the cost of
providing spent nuclear fuel storage at the contract holders'
storage facility; or
(3) provide any combination of the foregoing.
(c) Scope of Relief.--The Secretary's obligation to provide
the relief under subsection (b) shall not exceed the
Secretary's obligation to accept delivery of such spent fuel
under the terms of the Secretary's contract with such
contract holder under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)), including any
otherwise permissible assignment of rights.
(d) Waiver of Claims.--(1) The Secretary may not enter into
a settlement agreement under subsection (a) or (f) or a
backup contract under section 102(a) with any contract holder
unless the contract holder--
(A) notifies the Secretary within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act of its intent to enter into a
settlement negotiations, and
(B) as part of such settlement agreement or backup
contract, waives any claim for damages against the United
States arising out of the Secretary's failure to begin
disposing of such person's high-level waste or spent nuclear
fuel by January 31, 1998.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be read to require a
contract holder to waive any future claim against the United
States arising out of the Secretary's failure to meet any new
obligation assumed under a settlement agreement or backup
storage agreement, including any obligation related to the
movement of spent fuel by the Department.
(e) Source of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 302(d) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)), the
Secretary may not make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste
Fund for any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary
pursuant to a settlement agreement or backup storage contract
under this Act except--
(1) the cost of acquiring and loading spent nuclear fuel
casks;
(2) the cost of transporting spent nuclear fuel from the
contract holder's site to the repository; and
(3) any other cost incurred by the Secretary required to
perform a settlement agreement or backup storage contract
that would have been incurred by the Secretary under the
contracts entered into under section 302(a) of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) notwithstanding
their amendment pursuant to this Act.
(f) Reactor Demonstration Program.--(1) Not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act of 2000, and notwithstanding Section 302(a)(5)
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C.
10222(a)(5)), the Secretary is authorized to take title to
the spent nuclear fuel withdrawn from the demonstration
reactor remaining from the Cooperative Power Reactor
Demonstration Program (Pub. L. No. 87-315, Sec. 109, 75 Stat.
679), the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor. Immediately upon the Secretary's taking title to the
Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor
spent nuclear fuel, the Secretary shall assume all
responsibility and liability for the interim storage and
permanent disposal thereof and is authorized to compensate
Dairyland Power Cooperative for any costs related to
operating and maintaining facilities necessary for such
storage, from the date of taking title until the Secretary
removes the spent nuclear fuel from the Dairyland Power
Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor site. The
Secretary's obligation to take title or compensate the holder
of the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor spent nuclear fuel under this subsection shall
include all of such fuel, regardless of the delivery
commitment schedule for such fuel under the Secretary's
contract with the Dairyland Power Cooperative as the contract
holder under Section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) or the acceptance schedule for
such fuel under section 106 of this Act.
(2) As a condition to the Secretary's taking of title to
the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor spent nuclear fuel, the contract holder for such fuel
shall enter into a settlement agreement containing a waiver
of claims against the United States as provided in this
section.
(g) Savings Clause.--(1) Nothing in this section shall
limit the Secretary's existing authority to enter into
settlement agreements or address shutdown reactors and any
associated public health and safety or environmental concerns
that may arise.
(2) Nothing in this Act diminishes obligations imposed upon
the Federal Government by the United States District Court of
Idaho in an order entered on October 17, 1995 in United
States v. Batt (No. 91-0054-S-EJL). To the extent this Act
imposes obligations on the Federal Government that are
greater than those imposed by the court order, the provisions
of this Act shall prevail.

SEC. 106. ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE.

(a) Priority Ranking.--Acceptance priority ranking shall be
determined by the Department's ``Acceptance Priority
Ranking'' report.
(b) Acceptance Rate.--As soon as practicable after
construction authorization, but no later than eighteen months
after the year of issuance of a license to receive and
possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
under section 101(c), the Secretary's total acceptance rate
for all spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste shall be a
rate no less than the following as measured in metric tons
uranium (MTU), assuming that each high-level waste canister
contains 0.5 MTU: 500 MTU in year 1, 700 MTU in year 2, 1,300
MTU in year 3, 2,100 MTU in year 4, 3,100 MTU in year 5,
3,300 MTU in years 6, 7, and 8, 3,400 MTU in years 9 through
24, and 3,900 MTU in year 25 and thereafter.
(c) Other Acceptances.--Subject to the conditions contained
in the license to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste issued under section 101(c), of
the amounts provided for in paragraph (b) for each year, not
less than one-sixth shall be--
(1) spent nuclear fuel or civilian high-level radioactive
waste of domestic origin from civilian nuclear power reactors
that have permanently ceased operation on or before the date
of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of
2000;
(2) spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors, as
necessary to promote nonproliferation activities; and
(3) spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
from research and atomic energy defense activities, including
spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors:
Provided, however, That the Secretary shall accept not less
than 7.5 percent of the total quantity of fuel and high-level
radioactive waste accepted in any year from the categories of
radioactive materials described in paragraphs (2) and (3) in
subsection (c). If sufficient amounts of radioactive
materials are not available to utilize this allocation, the
Secretary shall allocate this acceptance capacity to other
contract holders.
(d) Effect on Schedule.--The contractual acceptance
schedule shall not be 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 S576]]

(e) Multi-Year Shipping Campaigns.--Consistent with the
acceptance schedule, the Secretary shall, in conjunction with
contract holders, define a specified multi-year period for
each shipping campaign and establish criteria under which the
Secretary could accept contract holders' cumulative
allocations of spent nuclear fuel during the campaign period
at one time and thereby enhance the efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
acceptance.

SEC. 107. INITIAL LAND CONVEYANCES.

(a) Conveyances of Public Lands.--One hundred and twenty
days after enactment, all right, title and interest of the
United States in the property described in subsection (b),
and improvements thereon, together with all necessary
easements for utilities and ingress and egress to such
property, including, but not limited to, the right to improve
those easements, are conveyed by operation of law to the
County of Nye, County of Lincoln, or the City of Caliente,
Nevada, 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 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 under this subsection
that are subject to a Federal grazing permit or lease or a
similar federally granted permit or lease shall be conveyed
between 60 and 120 days of the earliest time the Federal
agency administering or granting the permit or lease would be
able to legally terminate such right under the statutes and
regulations existing at the date of enactment of this Act,
unless Nye County and the affected holder of the permit or
lease 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 February 1, 2000, 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 Nye, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: Beatty
Map 2: Ione/Berlin
Map 3: Manhattan
Map 4: Round Mountain/Smoky Valley
Map 5: Tonopah
Map 6: Armargosa Valley
Map 7: Pahrump.
(3) To the County of Lincoln, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, 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.
(4) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, 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.
(5) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public
lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on
file with the Secretary:
Map 1: City of Caliente, Industrial Park Site Expansion.
(c) Construction.--The maps and legal descriptions of
special conveyance referred to in subsection (b) 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.
(d) Evidence of Title Transfer.--Upon the request of the
County of Lincoln or the County of Nye, Nevada, the Secretary
of the Interior shall provide evidence of title transfer.
(e) Consent.--(1) 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 implied, either under the Constitution of
the State of Nevada or any law thereof, to the siting of the
repository in the State of Nevada, any provision of such
Constitution or laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
(2) 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 repository
premised upon or related to the acceptance or use of benefits
under this title.
(3) 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.

TITLE II--TRANSPORTATION

SEC. 201. TRANSPORTATION.

Section 180 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42
U.S.C. 10175) is amended to read as follows:

``transportation

``Sec. 180. (a) In General.--The transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from any
civilian nuclear power reactor to any other civilian nuclear
power reactor or to any Department of Energy Facility, by or
for the Secretary, or by or for any person who owns or
generates spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste,
shall be subject to licensing and regulation by the
Commission and the Secretary of Transportation under all
applicable provisions of existing law.
``(1) Preferred shipping routes.--The Secretary shall
select and cause to be used preferred shipping routes for the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level
radioactive waste from each shipping origin to the repository
in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Transportation under authority of the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act (chapter 51 of title 49, United
State Code) and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under
authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et
seq.).
``(2) State rerouting.--For purposes of this section, a
preferred route shall be an Interstate System highway for
which an alternative route is not designated by a State
routing agency, or a State-designated route designated by a
State routing agency pursuant to section 397.103 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(b) Shipping Containers.--No spent nuclear fuel or high-
level radioactive waste may be transported by or for the
Secretary under this Act except in packages--
``(1) the design of which has been certified by the
Commission; and
``(2) that have been determined by the Commission to
satisfy its quality assurance requirements.
``(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall provide advance
notification to States and Indian tribes through whose
jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear
fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
``(d) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) States and indian tribes.--As provided in paragraph
(3), the Secretary shall provide technical assistance and
funds to States and Indian tribes for training of public
safety officials or appropriate units of State, local, and
tribal government. A State shall allocate to local
governments within the State a portion of any funds that the
Secretary provides to the State for technical assistance and
funding.
``(B) Employee organizations.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance and funds for training directly to
nonprofit employee organizations, voluntary emergency
response 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.
``(C) Training.--Training under this section--
``(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 under
subsection (h); 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.

``(2) No shipments if no training.--
``(A) There shall be no shipments by the Secretary of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the
jurisdiction of any State or the reservation lands of any
Indian tribe eligible for grants under paragraph (3)(B) to
the repository until the Secretary has made a determination
that personnel in all State, local, and tribal jurisdictions
on primary and alternative shipping

[[Page S577]]

routes have met acceptable standards of training for
emergency responses to accidents involving spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste, as established by the
Secretary, and unless technical assistance and funds to
implement procedures for the safe routine transportation and
for dealing with emergency response situations under
paragraph (1)(A) have been available to a State or Indian
tribe for at least 3 years prior to any shipment: Provided,
however, That the Secretary may ship spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste if technical assistance or funds
have not been made available because of--
``(i) an emergency, including the sudden and unforeseen
closure of a highway or rail line or the sudden and
unforeseen need to remove spent fuel from a reactor because
of an accident, or
``(ii) the refusal to accept technical assistance by a
State or Indian tribe, or
``(iii) fraudulent actions which violate Federal law
governing the expenditure of Federal funds.
``(B) In the event the Secretary is required to transport
spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste through a
jurisdiction prior to 3 years after the provision of
technical assistance or funds to such jurisdiction, the
Secretary shall, prior to such shipment, hold meetings in
each State and Indian reservation through which the shipping
route passes in order to present initial shipment plans and
receive comments. Department of Energy personnel trained in
emergency response shall escort each shipment. Funds and all
Department of Energy training resources shall be made
available to States and Indian tribes along the shipping
route no later than three months prior to the commencement of
shipments: Provided, however, That in no event shall such
shipments exceed 1,000 metric tons per year: Provided
further, That no such shipments shall be conducted more than
four years after the effective date of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
``(3) Grants.--
``(A) In general.--To implement this section, the Secretary
may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to the
extent provided for in appropriation Acts.
``(B) Grants for development of plans.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant of at
least $150,000 to each State through the jurisdiction of
which and each federally recognized Indian tribe through the
reservation lands of which one or more shipments of spent
nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will be made
under this Act for the purpose of developing a plan to
prepare for such shipments.
``(ii) Limitation.--A grant shall be made under clause (i)
only to a State or a federally recognized Indian tribe that
has the authority to respond to incidents involving shipments
of hazardous material.
``(C) Grants for implementation of plans.--
``(i) In general.--Annual implementation grants shall be
made to States and Indian tribes that have developed a plan
to prepare for shipments under this Act under subparagraph
(B). The Secretary, in submitting the annual departmental
budget to Congress for funding of implementation grants under
this section, shall be guided by the State and tribal plans
developed under subparagraph (B). As part of the Department
of Energy's annual budget request, the Secretary shall report
to Congress on--

``(I) the funds requested by States and federally
recognized Indian tribes to implement this subsection;
``(II) the amount requested by the President for
implementation; and
``(III) the rationale for any discrepancies between the
amounts requested by States and federally recognized Indian
tribes and the amounts requested by the President.

``(ii) Allocation.--Of funds available for grants under
this subparagraph for any fiscal year--

``(I) 25 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary to
ensure minimum funding and program capability levels in all
States and Indian tribes based on plans developed under
subparagraph (B); and
``(II) 75 percent shall be allocated to States and Indian
tribes in proportion to the number of shipment miles that are
projected to be made in total shipments under this Act
through each jurisdiction.

``(4) Availability of funds for shipments.--Funds under
paragraph (1) shall be provided for shipments to a
repository, regardless of whether the repository is operated
by a private entity or by the Department of Energy.
``(5) 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.
``(e) Public Information.--The Secretary shall conduct a
program, in cooperation with corridor States and tribes, to
inform the public regarding the transportation of spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with an
emphasis on those States, 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.
``(f) Use of Private Carriers.--The Secretary, in providing
for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste under this Act, shall contract with 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.
``(g) Compliance With Transportation Regulations.--Any
person that transports spent nuclear fuel or high-level
radioactive waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments
Act of 2000, pursuant to a contract with the Secretary, shall
comply with all requirements governing such transportation
issued by the Federal, State and local governments, and
Indian tribes, in the same way and to the same extent that
any person engaging in that transportation that is in or
affects interstate commerce must comply with such
requirements, as required by section 5126 of title 49, United
States Code.
``(h) 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).
``(i) Training Standard.--
``(1) Regulation.--No later than 12 months after the date
of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
2000, 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 existing Federal regulations
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, by Memorandum of Understanding, ensure
coordination of worker training standards and to avoid
duplicative regulation.
``(3) Training standards content.--(A) If training
standards are required to be promulgated under paragraph (1),
such standards shall, among other things deemed necessary and
appropriate by the Secretary of Transportation, provide for--
``(i) a specified minimum number of hours of initial
offsite instruction and actual field experience under the
direct supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor;
``(ii) 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
(iii) 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.
``(B) The Secretary of Transportation may specify an
appropriate combination of knowledge, skills, and prior
training to fulfill the minimum number of hours requirements
of clauses (i) and (ii).
``(4) 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.
``(5) 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.''.

TITLE III--DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STRATEGY

SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

(a) Prior to permanent closure of the geologic repository
in Yucca Mountain, Congress must determine whether the spent
fuel in the repository should be treated as waste subject to
permanent burial or should be

[[Page S578]]

considered an energy resource that is needed to meet future
energy requirements.
(b) Future use of nuclear energy may require construction
of a second geologic repository unless Yucca Mountain can
safely accommodate additional spent fuel. Improved spent fuel
strategies may increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain.
(c) Prior to construction of any second permanent geologic
repository, the nation's current plans for permanent burial
of spent fuel should be re-evaluated.

SEC. 302. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an Office
of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology of the Department of Energy.
The Office shall be headed by the Associate Director, who
shall be a member of the Senior Executive Service appointed
by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and
Technology, and compensated at a rate determined by
applicable law.
(b) Associate Director.--The Associate Director of the
Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research shall be responsible
for carrying out an integrated research, development, and
demonstration program on technologies for treatment,
recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the general
supervision of the Secretary. The Associate Director of the
Office shall report to the Director of the Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology. The first such Associate
Director shall be appointed within 90 days of the enactment
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
(c) Grant and Contract Authority.--In carrying out his
responsibilities under this section, the Secretary may make
grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the
research projects and activities described in (d)(2).
(d) Duties.--(1) The Associate Director of the Office shall
involve national laboratories, universities, the commercial
nuclear industry, and other organizations to investigate
technologies for the treatment, recycling, and disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
(2) The Associate Director of the Office shall--
(A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by
2015;
(B) identify promising technologies for the treatment,
recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste;
(C) conduct research and development activities for
promising technologies;
(D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives
minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to the health
of the general public or site workers, as well as development
of cost-effective technologies;
(E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based
transmutation systems;
(F) require research on advanced processing and
separations;
(G) ensure that research efforts with this Office are
coordinated with research on advanced fuel cycles and
reactors conducted within the Office of Nuclear Energy
Science and Technology.
(e) Report.--The Associate Director of the Office of Spent
Nuclear Fuel Research shall annually prepare and submit a
report to the Congress on the activities and expenditures of
the Office that discusses progress being made in achieving
the objectives of subsection (b).

TITLE IV--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 401. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish a Decommissioning Pilot Program to decommission and
decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental
test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.
(b) Funding.--No funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund may be
used for the Decommissioning Pilot Program.

SEC. 402. REPORTS.

(a) The Secretary is directed to report within 90 days from
enactment of this Act regarding all alternatives available to
Northern States Power Company and the Federal Government
which would allow Northern States Power Company to operate
the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant until the end of
the term of its current Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licenses, assuming existing State and Federal laws remain
unchanged.
(b) Within six months of enactment of this Act, the General
Accounting Office is directed to report back to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House
Committee on Commerce on the potential economic impacts to
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan ratepayers should the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant 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 onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel storage.

SEC. 403. 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.

SEC. 404. FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY.

Any spent nuclear fuel associated with the Fast Flux Test
Facility at the Hanford Reservation shall be transported and
stored at the repository site as soon as practicable after
the Commission has authorized the construction of the
repository.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I certainly want to accommodate the
Senator from Massachusetts. I would like to take a moment to thank some
of the people who have worked on this legislation.
I take this opportunity to, first of all, compliment the professional
staff who prepared a good deal of the material for the debate we just
concluded. Andrew Lundquist, who is pretty much the general on the
Energy Committee as the chief of staff of the Energy Committee, worked
very hard. He had a little difficulty because his wife had a baby in
the middle of the debate--a little girl, who joins three young
brothers. But I do thank Andrew.
Colleen Deegan, who is on my right, we would not have been able to
get as far as we had without her. Other committee staff who helped or
others who did not create too many problems are Kelly Johnson, Kristin
Phillips, Bryan Hannigan, David Dye, Betty Nevitt, Jim Beirne--who sat
here an extended period of time--and Bob Simon and Sam Fowler from the
minority. The departed staff member who worked on this for about 5
years is Karen Hunsicker, who worked on it until the end of last year.
While Senator Bingaman and I could not agree to resolve all the
issues, I compliment him and his staff for working to try to reach an
accord on the issue.
I think it is unfortunate we could not bring the administration
aboard in a responsible manner, either taking title or without taking
title. It is clear this matter will not be resolved on the watch of the
Clinton administration. I suspect the Vice President's attitude on this
should be known by the public as the campaign progresses.
But nevertheless, I thank my two colleagues from Nevada for the
manner in which they nobly represented the interests of their State.
That is very important around here. As they know, Senator Stevens and I
have often tried to convince this body that those of us who are elected
from an individual State really have the best interests of that State
at heart. For the most part, the Members I think should be very
sensitive of that fact. That was evidenced in the vote today.
I would like to make one assumption, that where we ended up is where
we ended up the last time on this. Although Senator McCain was not
here, we can assume he would have voted with us.
Mr. REID. Senator Kennedy was not here.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Of course, Senator Kennedy was not here.
While there were a few changes, we ended up just about where we were
the last time. As far as I am concerned, this matter has to rest with
the administration for a solution. The Senator from Alaska will not be
banging his head against the door to try to solve this Nation's nuclear
waste problem until we get from the administration a program that
suggests they are going to address the problem with a resolve.
Again, I thank all of those who were involved in the debate. I wish
you all a good day as we lament on the reality of this last vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition, but I do not
want to deprive the Senator from Nevada speaking if he wants a brief
moment to follow up.
How much time does the Senator wish?

[[Page S579]]

Mr. BRYAN. If the good Senator would yield for a minute?
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield for 1
minute to the Senator and that then the floor would be returned to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
I wish to respond to the gracious statement by the chairman of the
Energy Committee. Although we have had strong differences on this
issue, the differences have been professional, not personal. He has
been very professional in the way in which he has handled this matter.
He has extended us every courtesy. I appreciate that. I think his
conduct and deportment reflect the highest traditions of the Senate. I
publicly acknowledge that. Even though, in combat, we were forceful in
our advocacy, as was he, this is something that is intensely personal
to us. The Senator understands that. But I do thank him very much for
his graciousness and professionalism.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________