[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S596-S598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yesterday, I commented on the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act amendments. I thought then, and I think today, there
are a few remarks that I probably ought to make aside from
complimenting the distinguished Senator for his untiring efforts to
address nuclear waste in a logical and sensible way.
Mr. President, I rise to compliment Senator Murkowski's leadership on
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I appreciate his efforts to
enable progress on the nation's need for concrete action on spent
nuclear fuel.
I find it amazing how fear of anything in this country with
``nuclear'' in its title, like ``nuclear waste'', seems to paralyze our
ability to act decisively. Nuclear issues are immediately faced with
immense political challenges.
There are many great examples of how nuclear technologies impact our
daily lives. Yet few of our citizens know enough about the benefits
we've gained from harnessing the nucleus to support actions focused on
reducing the remaining risks.
Just one example that should be better understood and appreciated
involves our nuclear navy. Their experience has important lessons for
better understanding of these technologies.
The Nautilus, our first nuclear powered submarine, was launched in
1954. Since then, the Navy has launched over 200 nuclear powered ships,
and about 85 are currently in operation. Recently, the Navy was
operating slightly over 100 reactors, about the same number as those
operating in civilian power stations across the country.
The Navy's safety record is exemplary. Our nuclear ships are welcomed
into over 150 ports in over 50 countries. A 1999 review of their safety
record was conducted by the General Accounting Office. That report
stated: ``No significant accident--one resulting in fuel degradation--
has ever occurred.'' For an Office like GAO, that identifies and
publicizes problems with government programs, that's a pretty
impressive statement.
Our nuclear powered ships have traveled over 117 million miles
without serious incidents. Further, the Navy has commissioned 33 new
reactors in the 1990s, that puts them ahead of civilian power by a
score of 33 to zero. And Navy reactors have more than twice the
operational hours of our civilian systems.
The nuclear navy story is a great American success story, one that is
completely enabled by appropriate and careful use of nuclear power.
It's contributed to the freedoms we so cherish.
Nuclear energy is another great American success story. It now
supplies about 20 percent of our nation's electricity, it is not a
supply that we can afford to lose. It's done it without release of
greenhouse gases, with a superlative safety record over the last
decade. The efficiency of nuclear plants has risen consistently and
their operating costs are among the lowest of all energy sources.
I've repeatedly emphasized that the United States must maintain
nuclear energy as a viable option for future energy requirements. And
without some near-term waste solution, like interim storage or an early
receipt facility, we are killing this option. We may be depriving
future generations of a reliable power source that they may desperately
need.
There is no excuse for the years that the issue of nuclear waste has
been with us. Near-term credible solutions are not technically
difficult. We absolutely must progress towards early receipt of spent
fuel at a central location, at least faster than the 2010 estimates for
opening Yucca Mountain that we now face or risk losing nuclear power in
this country.
Senator Murkowski's bill is a significant step toward breaking the
deadlock which countries to threaten the future of nuclear energy in
the U.S. I appreciate that he made some very tough decisions in
crafting this bill that blends ideas from many sources to seek
compromise in this difficult area.
One concession involves tying the issuance of a license for the
``early receipt facility'' to construction authorization for the
permanent repository. I'd much prefer that we simply moved ahead with
interim storage. An interim storage facility can proceed on its own
merits, quite independent of decisions surrounding a permanent
repository. Such an interim storage facility could be operational well
before the ``early receipt facility'' authorized in this Act.
There are absolutely no technical issues associated with interim
storage in dry casks, other countries certainly use it. Nevertheless,
in the interests of seeking a compromise on this issue, I will support
this Act's approach with the early receipt facility.
I appreciate that Senator Murkowski has included Title III in the new
bill with my proposal to create a new DOE Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Research. This new Office would organize a research program to explore
new, improved national strategies for spent nuclear fuel.
Spent fuel has immense energy potential--that we are simply tossing
away with our focus only on a permanent repository. We could be
recycling that spent fuel back into civilian fuel and extracting
additional energy. We could follow the examples of France, the U.K.,
and Japan in reprocessing the fuel to not only extract more energy, but
also to reduce the volume and toxicity of the final waste forms.
Now, I'm well aware that reprocessing is not viewed as economically
desirable now, because of today's very low uranium prices. Furthermore,
it must only be done with careful attention to proliferation issues.
But I submit that the U.S. should be prepared for a future evaluation
that may determine that we are too hasty today to treat this spent fuel
as waste, and that instead we should have been viewing it as an energy
resource for future generations.
We do not have the knowledge today to make that decision. Title III
establishes a research program to evaluate options to provide real data
for such a future decision.
This research program would have other benefits. We may want to
reduce the toxicity of materials in any repository to address public
concerns. Or we may find we need another repository in the future, and
want to incorporate advanced technologies into the final waste products
at that time. We could, for example, decide that we want to maximize
the storage potential of a future repository, and that would require
some treatment of the spent fuel before final disposition.
Title III requires that a range of advanced approaches for spent fuel
be studied with the new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research. As we do
this,
[[Page S597]]
I'll encourage the Department to seek international cooperation. I
know, based on personal contacts, that France, Russia, and Japan are
eager to join with us in an international study of spent fuel options.
Title III requires that we focus on research programs that minimize
proliferation and health risks from the spent fuel. And it requires
that we study the economic implications of each technology.
With Title III, the United States will be prepared, some years in the
future, to make the most intelligent decision regarding the future of
nuclear energy as one of our major power sources. Maybe at that time,
we'll have other better energy alternatives and decide that we can move
away from nuclear power. Or we may find that we need nuclear energy to
continue and even expand its current contribution to our nation's power
grid. In any case, this research will provide the framework to guide
Congress in these future decisions.
Mr. President, I want to specifically discuss one of the compromises
that Senator Murkowski has developed in his manager's amendment. In my
view, his largest compromise involves the choice between the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
set the radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain and for the
``early release facility.''
The NRC has the technical expertise to set these standards.
Furthermore, the NRC is a non-political organization, in sharp contrast
to the political nature of the EPA. We need unbiased technical
knowledge in setting these standards, there should be no place for
politics at all. The EPA has proposed a draft standard already, that
has been widely criticized for its inconsistency and lack of scientific
rigor--events that do not enhance their credibility for this role.
I appreciate, however, the care that Senator Murkowski has
demonstrated in providing the ultimate authority to the EPA. His new
language requires both the NRC and the National Academy of Sciences to
comment on the EPA's draft standard. And he provides a period of time,
until mid-2001, for the EPA to assess concerns with their standard and
issue a valid standard.
These additions have the effect of providing a strong role for both
the NRC and NAS to share their scientific knowledge with the EPA and
help guide the EPA toward a credible standard.
The NRC should be complimented for their courageous stand against the
EPA in this issue. Their issuance of a scientifically appropriate
standard stands in stark contrast to the first effort from the EPA.
Thanks to the actions of the NRC, the EPA can be guided toward
reasonable standards.
Certainly, my preference is to have the NRC issue the final standard.
But I appreciate the effort that Senator Murkowski has expended in
seeking compromise in this difficult area.
By following the procedures in the manager's amendment, we can allow
the EPA to set the final standard, guided by the inputs from the NRC
and NAS. Thus, I will support the manager's amendment.
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Murskowski for his superb
leadership in preparing this new act. We need to pass this manager's
amendment with a veto-proof majority, to ensure that we finally attain
some movement in the nation's ability to deal with high level nuclear
waste.
We hear so much in the United States about how dangerous nuclear
power is, how dangerous these fuel rods are that come out of the
reactors, how dangerous nuclear reactors are, and I thought I might
share with whomever is interested a bit of information about how safe
nuclear powerplants are.
In this country, when we talk about moving some of the nuclear waste
from one State to another, people get up in arms and they want to march
down the streets because they are frightened to death that something is
going to happen if this nuclear waste moves down the streets, the
roads, the highways, or whatever. I thought I might share a series of
facts with you that might make you think a little bit.
First, the U.S. Navy launched the first nuclear-powered submarine in
1954. We put a nuclear reactor in a submarine and we sent the submarine
all over the oceans of the world, and nothing ever happened to anyone.
Since then, the Navy has launched 200 nuclear-powered ships, and about
85 are currently in operation. In other words, 85 of the U.S. Navy's
best and biggest warships are on the high seas with a nuclear reactor--
in some cases two reactors--on board. Were something to happen, it
would permeate and go right through the water. But guess what. Nothing
has ever happened to anyone. Guess what else. Every major port in the
world accepts America's Navy ships with nuclear reactors on board
generating power to run that ship. Nobody seeks to say: You better keep
these away from our port because there are a lot of other ships around
here.
Why is that, I wonder? Why are we on the floor of the Senate almost
whipped up to a lather of fear about moving high-level waste from some
State in middle America to some State in western America and we have 85
nuclear-powered U.S. Navy ships, from battleships on down, moving
around the high seas and docking at various ports everywhere? Nobody
has a sign up. Nobody is frightened. Nothing has ever happened. And
guess what. Because it was too good to be true, somebody said to go out
and find out something about them; they must be hurting people with all
these nuclear reactors.
So the GAO went out and did an extensive and exemplary study about
what they had done and not done. Guess what they found. This is a 1999
review. ``No significant accidents. One resulting in fuel degradation
has ever occurred.'' For an office such as the GAO that identifies
public problems with Government programs, that is a pretty impressive
statement.
Our nuclear-powered ships, I say to Senator Murkowski, have traveled
over 117 million miles on the high seas of the world. Nobody has said
we don't want them on the high seas because they have a nuclear
powerplant in them because they are safe as safe can be. Yet when it
comes to us here in America we wonder whether we can transport some
nuclear waste 200 miles. If we aren't technically sound enough, if we
are not smart enough, if we are not engineered and qualified to be able
to move something such as this 200 or 300 miles when the Navy has been
moving reactors on the high seas 117 million miles--they have
commissioned 33 new reactors in the 1990s. Just think of that. That
puts them ahead of the civilian power by a score of 33 to 0. Because we
have frightened ourselves to death, we will not even license a new
nuclear powerplant in the United States.
We surely are proud as proud can be when we see a great big American
battleship or aircraft carrier floating on those high seas with all
those Navy guys on board. What do they have? Some of them have two
nuclear powerplants in the hull loaded with the same kind of waste
product about which we are so worried. The distinguished Senator from
Alaska is saying: Why don't we just move that and put it in a place
where it can be stored? No one else in the world who is involved in
nuclear power has tied the future of nuclear power and nuclear use to
the ultimate disposition of the high-level waste residue in a permanent
underground facility from whence it can never be extracted and for
which the technical requirements are so severe in terms of making sure
it lasts for 100,000 years--or whatever the number is--that we are
never going to get it done. It is amazing. It is just amazing.
The country of France gets 87 percent of its electricity from nuclear
power. They still do not have a plan to put the nuclear waste away
permanently because they are not frightened about it. They trust their
intelligent, enlightened leaders, who currently have it in gymnasiums
about the size of high schools. That is where it is stored. You can
walk on top of it where it is stored and nobody is worried about
anything. Here we are debating whether we could have a temporary
storage facility--as the country that invented it, as the country that
engineered it, as the country whose great nuclear physicists invented
the notion and came up with the idea of how to power-generate it, and
we sit, except for the U.S. Navy, letting the rest of the world just
pass us by.
The Senator from Alaska will never get the credit he deserves for
trying to get this little site, this temporary facility. He will never
get the credit.
[[Page S598]]
People are thinking we are trying to pull something over on them; we
might be hurting people; we are just trying to get it out of one site
and hide it someplace else.
There are 85 U.S. Navy ships, I remind everybody one more time, of
all sizes, including battleships, aircraft carriers, and some with two
nuclear powerplants on them. As we stand right here, they are floating
around on the high seas where the water is all fissionable. If you are
in this part of the Atlantic, the water will eventually end up over
here miles away, and nobody is lodging serious complaints. They may say
we don't want the U.S. Navy around for some other reason. And thank God
we have them. But they are in ports everywhere. They don't take the
nuclear powerplant out before they come into a port. Right? They don't
have three kinds of motors around. They may have a couple of auxiliary
motors. But the nuclear powerplants are right there on board.
I thought I would just state that part of my statement which I put in
the Record yesterday because it is so obvious to me that we are being
so foolish in tying the ultimate disposition of the high-level waste
generated by 20 percent of our electrical powerplants, which are
nuclear, to a policy that says unless and until we find a place to put
that underground at Yucca--wherever it is in Nevada--forever we will
not continue with nuclear power.
I believe it is so shortsighted and based on such an insignificant
set of scientific facts that it is almost as if America just wouldn't
do something such as that. But we are doing it. There were letters
circulating yesterday that the proposal of the Senator from Alaska
would not be helpful; in fact, it would hurt people. I don't think I
have to repeat. I think I have made the case.
What would the world be doing if in fact nuclear reactors were that
unsafe and U.S. Navy ships want to dock to let their Navy men go on
shore for a while and then get on with something else? I do not believe
they would be saying: Have we found a place to put the nuclear waste
that is coming in on that new battleship that you are generating? Have
you found a place to put it away forever? I think they would say: Gee,
there is no risk at all involved. It is a pretty good venture. We are
glad to have you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my good friend from New
Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had a chart that we
used in the debate. That chart showed the 40 States that had the
accumulated waste--80 sites in 40 States. I wish I would have added the
85 nuclear ships that are traversing the ocean because the Senator from
New Mexico is quite correct. That is something we don't talk much
about. It works. The Navy, obviously, has the expertise that has been
developed over a long period of time. When those submarines or surface
ships are taken out of active duty, reactors are removed. That waste is
taken and stored at various areas in the country. Chicken Little was
suggested around here today; the world is coming down. It doesn't have
to come down. It is the emotional arguments that prevail without any
sound science.
I appreciate the input of my good friend and his commitment to the
obligation that remains unresolved.
____________________