[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.

                          ____________________