Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6451-S6491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

APPROVAL OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senate today is faced with an
important decision about whether to ship extremely hazardous, high-
level nuclear waste to a permanent repository in Yucca Mountain. Let
there be no doubt in anyone's mind, I would like to see this nuclear
waste shipped safely out of Minnesota. I wish I could responsibly vote
to support this resolution. I regret that I cannot today vote in favor.
I have consistently said that before the Department of Energy and the
Congress make a final judgment that we are ready to begin shipping
high-level nuclear waste to a repository, there should be a carefully
thought out, detailed plan in place, approved by the NRC and the DOE,
to transport this radioactive waste and to manage all of the risks
associated with that transportation.
Although it has had over 30 years to do so, the Department of Energy
has failed to develop such a safe--I emphasize ``safe''--waste
transportation plan.
While I want this high-level nuclear waste out of our State and think
Yucca Mountain may very well be the most sensible location, I don't
think we should move forward and commit ourselves irrevocably until we
have all of the transportation and security issues addressed.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion, through a careful
examination of congressional testimony, meetings with DOE officials,
including the Secretary of Energy, State energy officials and local
leaders, that there are too many uncertainties, too many unresolved
issues, and the risks are simply too high for the citizens of
Minnesota.
I cannot now support this resolution. We urgently need to develop a
comprehensive waste transportation plan and policy that protects the
health and safety of local communities and all Americans. We should
have such a plan in place before moving forward on a permanent
repository plan.
It is unacceptable to me as a Senator that the Department of Energy
has ignored the very real and daunting task of developing a secure,
comprehensive transportation plan before seeking to authorize the Yucca
Mountain site.
The simple fact is, the Congress should not be considering nor should
the DOE have recommended authorization of the Yucca Mountain site
before State and local officials were consulted and a comprehensive
transportation plan has been finalized which takes into account their
concerns and the people they represent.
Madam President, even though the Department of Energy has had years
to develop such a plan, they don't have one. By the way, I thank
Secretary Abraham. I have talked with him over the phone. He has been
very gracious, and I appreciate that. But when he testified May 16,
2002, that the ``Department is just beginning to formulate its
preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan,'' to me, that is not
enough for my State or the country.
The Department spent $7 billion looking into Yucca Mountain geology
but less than $2 million on the transportation of the nuclear waste.
That works out at less than $10 million a year for the last 20 years.
This is a fundamental flaw in the Department's approach. So, to me,
failing to plan for the safe and secure transport of nuclear waste
before approving the repository site would be irresponsible.
I recognize the industry has had a generally safe record of
transporting small amounts of nuclear waste over the last 35 years. But
shipments to Yucca Mountain would be at an unprecedented level. The
Department of Energy estimates that transportation to a central
repository could involve the shipment of more than 46,000 tons of high-
level radioactive nuclear waste across 40 States in 53,000 trucks or
20,000 railcars. It is worth noting that even if the shipments were to
begin today, there are more than 200 million Americans living in the
700-plus counties that are traversed by DOE's potential roads and rail
lines. The population is only going to grow, and grow more quickly,
during the time DOE needs to move nuclear waste across the country.
Beginning in 2010, the DOE estimates that over 1,000 truck and rail
shipments of nuclear waste could well travel through Minnesota, through
our most populated cities and towns such as Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Mankato, Rochester, and the Twin City suburbs. So 683,000--looking at
the proposed route--Minnesotans would live within 1 mile; 2,213,612
Minnesotans would live within 5 miles; 3,121,718 Minnesotans would live
within 20 miles. That is about half of the State's population.
This raises a very important and yet unanswered set of questions
about the risks of possible accidents or terrorist

[[Page S6452]]

attacks, and how local communities through which the waste would travel
would manage the risk. That is why the Conference of Mayors passed a
resolution just this past June expressing serious concerns about the
issue and urging the Congress to prohibit the transport of waste until
all cities--I include Minnesota cities and towns--along the proposed
transportation route have been consulted and have received adequate
training and equipment to protect the public health and safety of the
citizens in the event of an accident.
Again, I thank the Department of Energy and I thank the Secretary for
his graciousness. Unfortunately, DOE has yet to hold any public
meetings in recent years in Minnesota on the topic of, again, where is
this going to go, what kind of training is there going to be, and how
are we going to prevent an accident? To me, this is a key issue.
Example: The DOE environmental impact statement maintains that
shipping high-level spent fuel casks on mixed general freight trains is
acceptable. This would permit casks of high-level nuclear waste to be
mixed among cars of corn, soybeans, autoparts, and other goods. I am
concerned that the DOE's regulations appear to be market driven; mixed
freight trains are cheaper than dedicated trains.
As the American Association of Railroads testified, DOE's position is
``driven, no doubt, by economic consideration.'' But the safe
transportation of these highly toxic materials must take precedence
over any cost considerations. I agree with the American Association of
Railroads that dedicated trains would be a safer and more prudent
alternative. I would like to have that laid out for me before we have a
final vote on the repository.

Madam President, I believe a transportation plan for nuclear waste
shipments should have a ``zero accident'' goal, but as yet the DOE
doesn't even have a plan. A zero accident goal would reflect a culture
in which safety is paramount and drives all aspects of the
transportation system. That goal encourages a culture of safety.
I know there are safety concerns about these materials being stored
where they are. The Department of Energy has argued that we need to
consolidate this waste in one location. But that argument overlooks the
fact that authorization of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository
doesn't solve these concerns. The only reactors that will get rid of
their waste completely, according to the DOE, are those that are closed
today--and those are not in Minnesota.
According to the draft environmental impact statement prepared by
DOE, the Monticello and Prairie Island reactors will still have 111 and
344 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste, respectively, onsite when
Yucca Mountain is full.
Despite what the proponents would have us believe, the DOE's proposal
fails to eliminate Minnesota's nuclear waste. Nationwide, when the
Yucca Mountain project is completed, there will roughly be the same
amount of high-level nuclear waste at powerplants across the country as
there is today. We simply cannot afford to overlook the real and
pressing security concerns inherent with the transportation of this
fuel, nor can we ignore the fact that the next generation will still be
left with similar problems of what to do with the waste.
I will conclude this way. We urgently need to achieve a real solution
to our storage problem with high-level nuclear waste, as opposed to
forcing authorization of Yucca Mountain before there is a comprehensive
plan for transporting the waste safely and securely before it is in
place.
I believe the Department of Energy needs to immediately begin a true
collaborative process, seeking broad-based stakeholder input on the
real challenges of transportation safety and emergency preparedness.
While the Department of Energy has elected to proceed with significant
questions remaining unresolved, a comprehensive transportation plan
developed through a consultative process would give DOE's proposal for
Yucca Mountain the credibility it now lacks. The DOE should immediately
organize a stakeholder task force to develop transportation
recommendations that include the experts on the ground, such as
Governors and their safety agencies, local elected officials of the
large and small towns where the waste will travel, emergency
preparedness experts, and public health and safety officials, and
develop a responsible plan that would transport this waste safely
before a final decision is made.
I believe there are a whole host of issues surrounding the
transportation of nuclear waste material that must be addressed before
final decisions are made on Yucca Mountain. We can make the decision
next year or the year after. That would be fine with me--if these
concerns can be met first.
Unfortunately, the administration has elected to force the issue
before all these concerns can be sufficiently addressed. I want to be
able to support this resolution. I would like to be able to vote to
move the high-level nuclear waste out of Minnesota. But I cannot, in
good conscience, do this before there is a comprehensive plan in place
to protect Minnesotans as this radioactive waste is moved through our
State to Yucca Mountain, and from our State to Yucca Mountain.

I think forcing the issue before such a comprehensive plan is in
place would be a serious mistake, and that is why I intend to vote no
on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, while I have the attention of the
Senator from Minnesota, the Department of Energy did a comprehensive
analysis called ``The Spent Nuclear Fuel Transportation System,'' which
I think encompasses a good deal of the concerns of the Senator from
Minnesota. I encourage that he review it at his leisure.
I also remind my colleagues that the issue before us is simply
licensing and the authority that this body gives the Department of
Energy to proceed with the license. That licensing process will
legitimately conclude in an evaluation of the adequacy of the
transportation proposals either by rail, road, or a combination of
both involving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Energy, and the National Academy of
Sciences. They are judged to be the best experts as opposed to those of
us who obviously are not necessarily specialists but generalists in
this area, although we have some expertise in legislation.

I also remind my colleagues that this is the formal process of some
20 years in evolution of addressing the procedure to address the waste.
I am sensitive to the needs of my colleagues from Nevada who
obviously do not want the waste in their State, but I remind my friend
from Minnesota that there are 835 metric tons of nuclear fuel stored in
Minnesota in two locations, and that Minnesota has three nuclear
units--Prairie Island 1 and 2 and Monticello.
As a consequence of the procedures we have initiated, there appears
to be one of two solutions: We either proceed and let the experts in
the agencies address a transportation plan in the sequence that has
been laid out that follows after the licensing, or we are going to be
right back where we were 20 years ago on what to do with the waste. I
can assure my colleagues, nobody wants it, but we have created it, and
we have an obligation to take care of it.
I would like to identify, so we can move along in sequence, those
speakers who have requested time on our side. We have Senator Bingaman,
who has asked for 10 minutes; Senator Thomas, some 8 to 10 minutes;
Senator Crapo, 5 minutes; Senator Kyl, 10 minutes. I would like to
reserve some time for myself, about 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will say quickly that this document
about which my friend from Alaska refers is not worth the paper on
which it is written. It talks about 4,300 shipments on trains--they
have no trains at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles from any train. This piece
of trash--and that is what it is--is typical of what the Department of
Energy has done. It is one big lie after one big lie.
As indicated by anyone who looks at it, there are 292 reports that
they did not even wait to see what the answers would be. The General
Accounting Office said that, not some radical environmental group--the
General Accounting Office. So the statements of my friend from
Minnesota are directly on point. This means nothing.

[[Page S6453]]

Madam President, in keeping with having some degree of preciseness on
the floor--I will be happy to yield some time to my friend--I am going
to yield 10 minutes in a minute to the Senator from Minnesota and then
it is my understanding the Senator from Alaska will yield 10 minutes to
the Senator from New Mexico, and following that, I will yield 10
minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who almost made it
here this morning. Then if the Senator from Alaska has somebody who
wishes to speak, that is fine; otherwise, I will yield time to the
Presiding Officer, who will be out of the chair at that time, just to
give an idea of how we are proceeding.
How much time does the Senator from Minnesota wish before I yield to
his colleague?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to the Senator from Nevada, 1 minute.
Mr. REID. I yield my friend 2 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Alaska, I
have over and over--my position is a somewhat different position than
the Senator from Nevada--over and over I have said do not separate
Yucca Mountain; you already put $7 billion into it. Why not lay out a
comprehensive plan about how you are going to transport this safely to
Yucca Mountain? That has been my issue over and over. I have asked the
Department of Energy when will there be such a plan? Two years? Three
years? Four years? I think we are now talking about several years in
the future.
I want to make it crystal clear to me that to vote for Yucca Mountain
without those assurances, without the assurances about how it is going
to be done safely, without the input of local communities, without the
commitment that people will be trained, without any of those assurances
whatsoever, it seems to me to be not responsible. That is my first
point.
My second point is to one more time say to my colleague and say to
all colleagues, though there are those who would have us believe Yucca
Mountain will eliminate Minnesota's nuclear waste, as a matter of fact,
according to the draft environmental impact statement by the DOE, we
still will have 111 and 344 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste in
Minnesota onsite at Monticello and Prairie Island.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, a little simple math: 77,000 tons now
exist. They can move at most 3,000 tons to someplace; let's say Yucca
Mountain. These reactors produce over 2,000 tons. I repeat, the math is
not very much. The big lie has been the fact that they say they are
going to have only one repository. They are still going to have 131
repositories. That is the way it is going to be. This is a big lie they
have perpetuated for many years now, and it is absolutely false that
they are going to have one repository. They will continue to have 131,
plus the mobile Chernobyls that will be all over America on trucks,
barges, and trains.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I thank my very distinguished colleague from Nevada
for granting me time. I join with my senior colleague from the State of
Minnesota who spoke very eloquently before me. I have come
independently to the same conclusion as he that I will vote against
designating Yucca Mountain as a national nuclear waste repository at
this time.
I do so because there are simply too many unanswered questions,
untested designs, and unproven procedures to approve a project that has
such enormous consequences.
Building a safe and secure storage site at Yucca Mountain and then
filling it with some 77,000 tons of nuclear waste will take the next 30
to 40 years. That is the rest of my generation's lifetime.
Throughout those three and four decades, the design, the
construction, the loading, the unloading, and the safe transportation
of over 150,000 pounds of extremely poisonous nuclear waste must all be
done perfectly--at least almost perfectly. One accident, one rupture,
one attack would have devastating effects on the lives of people today
and for generations to follow, as one look at a victim of the Chernobyl
nuclear accident would confirm.
That is the easy part, those 30 to 40 years. Now those 150,000 pounds
or as much as 200,000 pounds of radioactive waste has to be stored,
contained, and isolated perfectly--almost perfectly--for thousands of
years.
That it must be nearly perfect does not mean it is unattainable or
unsustainable, but it does mean that the standards for approval must be
very high. The standards of reliability, of proven technology, of
public safety must be extraordinarily high. They must be met and
maintained with certainty, and that certainty must be guaranteed to the
American people.
This project is nowhere near that standard today, not even close.
That is why we should not even be considering the approval we are being
required to give or to deny today. This is not what the law proscribes.
The law states, as it has for the last 20 years, that within 90 days
after Congress's final approval, which will be today if this body so
decides, the Department of Energy shall submit its application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
According to the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the
Department is at least 2 years or more away from being ready to submit
that application. According to the private project manager, Bechtel
Corporation, DOE is 4 years or more away from being able to submit an
acceptable application.

I was not here in 1982 when the law was passed, but clearly the
lawmakers intended, and I believe wisely so, that Congress's final
review of this project would be within 90 days, or very shortly before
the Department of Energy made its application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; in other words, after all the testing and design and
evaluation had been completed. Today we can do nothing more, if we are
so inclined, to say it looks OK or it does not look OK. A lot more has
to be done.
As the Senator from Nevada pointed out correctly, the Department of
Energy has still almost 200 tests and assessments remaining that it
agreed, itself, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have to be
completed before the Department of Energy could even submit an
acceptable application for site construction to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Just to develop an acceptable application, it has to
complete some 200 more assessments. Then the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has up to 4 years to review. There is no one else who has
the expertise beyond ours and is associated with this project who
maintains it is even ready to begin to be considered. Why are we put in
a position of acting on it today? Why even consider approving it today?
Given those high standards that are necessary, some of the recent
critiques of expert advisory boards and commissions are truly alarming.
A January 24 letter of this year to Congress by the U.S. Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board stated:

The Board's view is that the technical basis for DOE's
repository performance estimates is weak to moderate at this
time.

Weak to moderate is a long ways from perfect.
In a September 18, 2001, letter to the Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
documented its review of the Department of Energy's performance
modeling called TSTA-SR. The committee's ``principal findings are that
this system does not lead to a realistic risk-informed result and does
not inspire confidence in the TSTA-SR process. In particular, the TSTA-
SR reflects the input and results of models and assumptions that are
not founded on realistic assessment of the evidence. The consequence is
that TSTA-SR does not provide a basis for estimating margins of
safety.''
Others who have written and raised similar questions and concerns. I
believe we should say no to the Yucca Mountain site today, not to
remove it from further consideration but we should not commit ourselves
to a decision that will affect the lives of millions of Americans today
and for generations and generations to follow based on insufficient
evidence, inadequate testing, incomplete analyses, undocumented
strategies. In a sense, the Senate would be put in a position to make
that attestation today which

[[Page S6454]]

no one could responsibly make about this project, particularly given
this level of assurance that the American people deserve.
Finally, as to the citizens of Nevada, they have been remarkably,
extraordinarily well served by the two Senators from that State,
Senators Reid and Ensign. We preside in the Senate in inverse
proportion to our seniority, which means I--being 100th in seniority--
spend as much time presiding as anyone else; I therefore have a chance
to observe what is going on in the Senate. The senior Senator from
Nevada, Mr. Reid, has been unbelievable in his tireless pursuit of
every Member of this body to discuss and to reason and implore their
recognition of the facts as he has so well articulated. Senator Ensign
is in his first term and has encountered an enormous responsibility to
his State which he has also performed remarkably well.

Regardless of the outcome of today's vote, I cannot imagine any two
people who could have possibly done more, tried more, put more of
themselves, heart and soul, into doing what they believe with all their
fervor is the right thing for the people of Nevada, and I believe for
the people of the United States, including the people of Minnesota,
which is to vote no against Yucca Mountain as a site today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, before I yield to the chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee 7 to 10 minutes, I point out
that for the past several decades we have moved nuclear waste safely in
this country. We have had 2,700 shipments in the past 30 years. We have
shipped 1.7 million miles. We have not had a single harmful release of
radioactivity. This is substantiated by the testimony in the committee.
Both the Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation,
the agencies responsible testified that the waste can be ``safely and
securely transported.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Alaska
yielding me a few minutes to express my views on this issue.
We are in a debate now about whether to proceed to consider S.J. Res.
34 which would approve President Bush's recommendation of Yucca
Mountain as the site for the development of a nuclear waste repository.
The resolution does not authorize construction of a repository.
Similarly, it does not authorize the transportation of nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain. What the resolution does do is allow the Department of
Energy to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to
begin construction of the repository. The Department of Energy still
needs to persuade the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the repository
would be safe before construction could begin and before shipments to
the repository could begin. Failure to approve the resolution that we
are talking about, S.J. Res. 34, would terminate the Nation's nuclear
waste program.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, passed before I came to this
Senate, gave the Governor of Nevada the power to veto the President's
site recommendation, and the Governor of Nevada exercised that
authority in April. If the President does not join the House of
Representatives in voting to override the Governor's veto by the 27th
of this month--this July--the Governor's veto stands. If the Governor's
veto is sustained, either the waste will stay where it is, in temporary
above-ground holding tanks at 72 nuclear powerplant sites and 4
Department of Energy nuclear weapons plants in 39 States, either it
stays where it is in those locations from now on, or Congress will have
to pass a new law to authorize the Department of Energy to search for a
new site, leaving the waste where it is safe enough in the short run.
I am not one who is saying there is an imminent health risk or safety
risk from leaving the waste where it currently is in the short run.
However, it is not an acceptable long-term solution. It would require
constant monitoring where it now is and frequent replacement of the
storage containers for thousands of years, or the waste will escape
into the environment. That is based on the expert testimony we received
in the committee hearings.
Looking for another site, without allowing the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to consider Yucca Mountain, to consider an application for a
license to use Yucca Mountain, is not a realistic course of action. We
have spent 20 years; we spent $4 billion looking at Yucca Mountain
already. No one has found a technical or scientific reason that makes
it unsuitable as yet. We are not likely to find a better site next
time, but, of course, if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines
that another site has to be found, then we can take on that task.

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which I chair, of
which my colleague from Alaska is the ranking member, carefully
considered the arguments against the repository that have been raised
by opponents of the project. I am the first to admit that not all of
the questions that have been raised by the opponents have yet been
adequately answered. They have not been. Many of those are questions,
though, that are best answered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
its licensing procedures and nothing in the record before us justifies
a decision, in my view, to terminate the program at this stage.
The hearing record that we compiled in the Energy Committee supports
approval of the resolution and it supports allowing the waste program
to continue. While not prejudging whether it will approve a license
application for Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
itself--and we had the Commission members there testifying before our
committee--testified that they believed nuclear waste can be safely
transported and safely buried at a repository. Not necessarily this
one--that will be a decision they will make in the future--but at a
repository.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board testified that:

No individual technical or scientific factor has been
identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain
from consideration.

The Environmental Protection Agency testified that the radiation
protection standards that will apply to this repository are ``among the
most stringent in the world.'' If the repository complies with them it
``will be fully protective of public health and the environment.''
That is ``if'' the repository complies with these standards. As I
say, that is a decision the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make in
the future.
In addition to these agencies of the Federal Government, we also
heard from the U.S. Geological Survey. They stated:

The scientific work performed to date supports a decision
to recommend Yucca Mountain for development of the nuclear
waste repository [and that] no feature or characteristic of
the site . . . would preclude recommending the site.
So based on this record, the committee found no reason to terminate
the program.
The National Academy of Sciences has said:

[G]eological disposal remains the only scientifically and
technically credible long-term solution available to meet the
need for safety without reliance on active management.

We have a responsibility to dispose of these wastes rather than leave
them for future generations to deal with. I do not favor just kicking
this can down the road and leaving it for someone else to act.
In sum, a vote for the motion to proceed on the resolution is not a
final vote to put nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. It is a vote to let
the Department of Energy apply for a license, a vote to let the
technical experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decide whether
Yucca Mountain is, in fact, safe.
A vote against the resolution is a vote to stop the program in its
tracks, to leave the waste where it is with no alternative strategy for
finding another site, and, frankly, with little or no chance of putting
together a political consensus to find another site in the foreseeable
future.
On the basis of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to approve the
motion to proceed and to approve the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I will yield to my friend from California in a minute, but
this is another one of the fallacies of this

[[Page S6455]]

whole debate. Isn't it too bad we have worked on it all this time, and
if it doesn't go through, what are we going to do?
Chairman Meserve of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said less than
a month ago:

If Yucca Mountain were to fail because of congressional
action, that does not mean all of a sudden from a policy
point of view that the country is at a stalemate and is
confronting imminent disaster.

Of course he would say that. We have nuclear reactors around the
country that are using their facilities to store the stuff onsite--
safely, in dry cask storage containment. You don't have all the worries
of transportation. It is safer than trying to haul this stuff past our
schools and homes. This is an argument that is without foundation. It
would not mean the end of the nuclear world at all.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California who, I would state,
is the chair of the environmental task force Senator Daschle has set up
and who has done an outstanding job pointing up the environmental
problems we have in America today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is indeed an honor to stand with my
friend from Nevada on this issue because there can be no higher calling
that we have than to protect the health and safety of the people we
represent--no higher calling.
It seems to me very interesting that, as we are about to address a
very important subject of corporate irresponsibility and try to fix the
mess that is happening on Wall Street, we would be disrupted from that
task to go to an issue such as this, which is so very harmful to our
people. I am going to take some time to explain it.
My State of California is one of the most affected by the Yucca
Mountain project because Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the
California border and from Death Valley National Park. Scientific
studies have shown that the regional ground water aquifer surrounding
Yucca Mountain discharges into Death Valley because Death Valley is
down gradient from Yucca Mountain. If the ground water is contaminated,
that will mean the demise of the park and the surrounding communities.
The tests that have been done on the site are not what we would want
to see. We see leakage; we do not see dryness. We see problems with
Yucca Mountain that would lead most people to assume there will be a
problem with leakage into the ground water. It is an absolute travesty
waiting to happen to my State.
The long-term viability of the fish, the wildlife, and the human
population is dependent on this aquifer. Water is life in the desert.
Water quality must be preserved. Given the threat posed by Yucca
Mountain, I have opposed it, and that was before 9-11.
Since 9-11, we have a whole other area of concern and that is taking
this waste from all over the country and putting it on trucks or trains
and shipping it across this country. It is an absolute disaster waiting
to happen. This is so hot that it has to be cooled for--I say to my
friend from Nevada, Senator Reid, am I correct in saying that waste is
so hot that it has to be cooled? And for how long does it have to be
cooled?
Mr. REID. I will respond to my friend from California. National
Geographic this month has a wonderful article on nuclear waste. Among
other things, it confirms what we have known for a long time. The
nuclear reactors in America and around the world are 97 percent
inefficient. That means you put in a fuel rod in a nuclear reactor and
when they take it out, it still has 97 percent of its radioactivity. It
has only used 3 percent.
The nuclear reactors are so inefficient they have to take them out of
the reactors and put them in water. You cannot take them out of the
water for at least 5 years for them to cool down.
Mrs. BOXER. Five years.
Mr. REID. Five years for them to cool down. So I say to my friend
from California, all this talk about we need to have one site, we don't
need to have 131 sites--the fact is, they are always going to have
spent fuel at the sites of the power-generating facilities.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I knew this waste was so hot that it
would have to be cooled down, but I wasn't aware that it was for 5
years.
Post 9-11, you would think this administration would think twice, or
three times, or six times, before they would go ahead and give the
order for this waste to move. We have given the airlines billions of
dollars. We are spending so much to make airports safe and here we have
this administration, the one that tells us we are in a war--there is
not a speech this President makes that he doesn't remind us that we are
in a war--is ready to put this kind of material on our roads.
I am just incredulous. The only thing I can come up with is, who is
really behind all of this?
I have a list of some of the people who are pushing for this. Let us
put that on the floor since we are talking about corporate power this
week.
We have the Nuclear Energy Institute. There are 260 companies in the
Nuclear Energy Institute pushing this. They include Enron, First
Energy, Bechtel, Duke Energy, and General Electric, to name a few.
There are a lot of special interests--260, to be exact--pushing this.
But where are the people? The people will be living in fear, I
guarantee you, when this starts.
Let me show you a map which I think my colleague must have shown
before. Let me show you a map first of just one area, Sacramento. The
red area is within 1 mile of one of the proposed routes. The yellow
area is within 3 miles of the proposed route, and the light yellow is
within 5 miles.
If you look at all of this, you see these little arrows. They are
actually schoolhouses. These are the schools located so close to this
traffic. The H's are the hospitals. We have 167 schools that are within
5 miles in this area. There are seven hospitals within 5 miles.
The PTA has sent us a letter against this project.
Where are my colleagues? You would think 9/11 never happened. You
would think 9/11 was just something in a movie. The PTA has basically
told us: Don't do this until you have a plan that you can prove is
safe.
Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to.
Mr. REID. The Senator mentioned the 260-plus companies that make up
NEI. Is the Senator aware that there is a lawsuit now pending to have
the Vice President of the United States divulge who he met with at
those energy companies and what they talked about? Is the Senator aware
of that?
Mrs. BOXER. I am certainly aware of that.
Mr. REID. I felt so strongly about that issue that I filed an amicus
curiae brief joining with the GAO to have him divulge that information.
I will bet a significant number of the 261-plus companies met with him
to develop the energy policy this administration came up with. Does the
Senator suggest that is probably true?
Mrs. BOXER. Given the track record of this administration in terms of
its energy policy and the President's lack of anything very exciting in
terms of how we are going to regain the confidence and trust of the
people, it is very possible--indeed, probable, in fact--that these
companies, or certainly their representatives, met with the Vice
President.
I will tell you, when that comes out, we will know even more why,
even after 9/11, they had this plan.
This is just one area--Sacramento. I want to show you Los Angeles. We
are not talking philosophy or ideology. We are talking about the
hottest, most dangerous waste known to humankind coming near schools
and hospitals in my State and in almost every other State.
Again, the red area is within 1 mile of the route. The yellow area is
within 3 miles. The light yellow area is within 5 miles. We have 446
schools within 5 miles of these routes. Is this what we owe those
little kids? Is this what we owe them? Are they going to close the
school down when they transport this near by? There are 23 hospitals
within 5 miles.
I am amazed we are debating this issue. I am amazed we are debating
this issue. The Department of Energy doesn't tell us what the final
plan is. You know why? It is because of the outcry in the country when
that final plan comes forward.

[[Page S6456]]

Attorney General Ashcroft has said we should worry about a ``dirty''
bomb. And we all do. We already know it has been disruptive. That is a
``dirty'' bomb. That is material that doesn't even come close to the
danger of this material.
I want to give you the facts about what happens in California with
the transportation of this waste.
We have 35 million people in our State. Seven million people in
California live within 1 mile of the proposed route.
I ask my colleague for 5 more minutes.
Mr. REID. I yield the Senator from California 5 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 more minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. There are 231 hospitals within 1 mile of the proposed
route. There are 3,500 schools within 1 mile of the proposed route.
Nuclear waste shipments in California over the life of the project, if
done by truck, will be 14,000-plus; if done by train, 13,000-plus;
2,040 metric tons of nuclear waste at facilities throughout California
now--which means that even with the Yucca Mountain we are going to have
nuclear waste in the State, which is also the case with most of our
States.
Our Attorney General had a press conference about the potential of a
``dirty'' bomb. We worry about where the terrorists are going to get
this material. This administration has been backing the transportation
of the most dangerous nuclear waste and not even mentioning 9/11. It is
almost like a Rip Van Winkle situation when it comes to Yucca Mountain.
Well, we have done it; we spent the money; and, we have invested it. It
doesn't matter--9/11, or anything else. You could have another
terrorist and it would still be here for Yucca Mountain.
Loud special interests are behind this vote. That is the only way you
can come to any other conclusion.
I will tell you some of the people who oppose this. I mentioned the
PTA. I will give you some more: The Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability, American Land Alliance, American Rivers, American
Public Health Association, Clean Water Action, Environmental Action
Foundation, Environmental Defense, Fellowship of Reconciliation,
Friends of the Earth, and the Government Accountability Project. It
goes on: League of Conservation Voters, International Association of
Firefighters.
Do you want to be a fireman and get called to a fire when one of
these accidents happens? The Department of Energy has said they know
already there are going to be accidents. Is that 100 accidents? They
predict that already.
The International Association of Firefighters knows what that could
mean to their lives.
Who are we fighting for here? I say to my colleague, this is a moment
of truth for every person here.
You could look at the United Church of Christ, United Methodist
Church, Wilderness Society, and the Women's Legislative Lobby in
Washington. These are people who have spoken out.
I ask unanimous consent to have this entire list printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Organizations Opposed to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Seattle, Washington,
American Lands Alliance, Washington, DC, Americans for
Democratic Action, Washington, DC, American Rivers,
Washington, DC, American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC, Center for Safe Energy, Earth Island
Institute, Berkeley, California, Clean Water Action,
Washington, DC, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC,
Earthjustice, Oakland, CA, Environmental Action Foundation,
Takoma Park, Maryland, Environmental Defense, New York, NY,
Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC, Fellowship of
Reconciliation, Nyack, NY, Free the Planet!, Washington, DC,
Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC, Government
Accountability Project, Seattle, WA, Grandmothers for Peace
International, Elk Grove, CA.
Greenpeace, Washington, DC, Honor the Earth, St. Paul,
Minnesota, Indigenous Environmental Network, Bemidji, MN,
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Takoma Park,
Maryland, International Association of Fire Fighters,
Washington, DC, League of Conservation Voters, Washignton,
DC, League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington, DC,
National Education Association, National Environmental
Coalition of Native Americans, Prague, OK, National
Environmental Trust, Washington, DC, National Parent Teacher
Association, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, Nuclear
Information and Resource Service, Washington, DC, Pax Christi
USA, Erie, PA, Peace Action, Washington, DC, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, Washington, DC.
Presbyterian Church (USA), National Ministries Division,
Washington, DC, Psychologists for Social Responsibility,
Washington, DC, Public Citizen, Washington, DC, The Safe
Energy Communication Council, Washington, DC, Scenic America,
Washington, DC, Sierra Club, Washington, DC, Union of
American Hebrew Congregations/Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, Washington, DC, United Church of Christ,
Office for Church in Society, Washington, DC, The United
Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society,
Washington, DC, U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
Washington, DC, The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC,
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom,
Philadelphia, PA, The Women Legislators' Lobby (WILL),
Washington, DC, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND),
Washington, DC, 20/20 Vision, Washington, DC.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to conclude and say I could show
you other charts that show the impact on other States. But I have made
my point. This nuclear waste is going to go by schools, it is going to
go by hospitals, it is going to go by our families, it is going to go
by our children, it is going to go by our homes, and it is going to go
by our businesses. And post-9/11 we don't even have the final plan.
I am proud to stand with my friends from Nevada. I am going to be in
this fight if they need me because I believe there are some moments on
this floor when you have to step up and realize you are here for a
brief time, but decisions we make can come back to haunt us. I hope
today people will think about that and vote with my colleague from
Nevada.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me point out a couple of facts
that perhaps some Members have not reflected upon.
There are no proposed routes. There are only potential routes.
While the Senator from California points out routes around Sacramento
or Los Angeles, they have simply taken every major route that has the
potential of moving nuclear waste and said this is, in fact, a proposed
route.
That is hardly accurate. It is fair to say there is no Yucca
transportation route yet. What opponents have done is they have
selected every major highway in the U.S. and simply called it
``proposed.'' That is certainly stretching things to suggest it is
going to go by hospitals, it is going to go by schools.
Clearly, there are efforts being made by the responsible agencies. If
we create these agencies, we have the oversight. If we do not have the
faith in them to do their job--the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--are we to
micromanage, if you will, when waste has been moving safely across this
country for decades, and to suggest that somehow we cannot move it
safely?
California is 17-percent dependent on nuclear energy. I am looking at
a spreadsheet. Cumulative spent fuel, in California, at the end of the
year 2000, was 1,954 metric tons, not including 98 metric tons from the
San Onofre Nuclear Reactor. There are 403 metric tons at shutdown
reactors, 11 metric tons in dry storage. It is going to stay there
unless it is going to be moved somewhere. It has to be moved by a
route. It has to be moved safely. Is it going to be moved by train or
by highway?
Clearly, we have moved 2,700 shipments in 30 years 1.7 million miles,
and with not a single harmful release of radioactivity. We have had
shipments to WIPP in New Mexico--900 shipments, since 1997, 900,000
shipment miles, and not a single harmful release of radioactivity.
Do you think we are the creators of moving this stuff? In Europe
there has been 70,000 tons shipped safely over 25 years. So this isn't
something that has just happened.
We have moved high-level nuclear waste across this country. Now we
are talking about moving waste out of our reactors. We are talking
about doing it responsibly.
Some of these arguments--we have heard the term ``red herring.''
Well,

[[Page S6457]]

this is a ``nuclear herring,'' if you will. Maybe it glows in the dark.
But it certainly suggests, in this debate, that somehow we are doing
something new in this country, that we are doing something that is high
risk in which we have not had any experience.
Again, in reference to bringing this discussion in the parameters, we
are not moving it to Yucca Mountain today. We are simply authorizing
the administration to proceed with the license process which will
address the legitimate transportation questions that are coming up in
this debate.
I yield the floor to my good friend from Wyoming.
How much time would the Senator from Wyoming require?
Mr. THOMAS. I think about 10 minutes, please.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an issue we have talked about for
a good long time. Some of the things I have heard today are quite
different than what we have talked about before. Nevertheless, everyone
is entitled to their own views.
I think, as has been mentioned, we ought to remind ourselves what the
purpose of this particular vote is about. It is to make it possible for
the Secretary to apply for a license to construct a site at Yucca
Mountain. If this fails, then ever since the 1980s, 24 years of work,
and $4 billion worth of expenditures will be halted and nothing more
will happen.
This is not the final issue to be talked about. This is not the issue
of transportation. This is the issue of whether or not to move forward
and license the site, which will then provide the opportunity and the
necessity of moving on to other issues, such as defining the
transportation routes and dealing with the safety of transportation.
I think we ought to keep in mind what we are doing here and that is
to authorize them to move forward in licensing the site. The site, of
course, is one of the most important issues before us. It has been said
a number of times that there are 131 different sites where waste is
stored. Not all of those sites will disappear, of course, but many of
them will. Those that have been Government used, that are not
continuing to be used, will be gone. We will have fewer sites.
I do not hear anyone talking about solving the problem. All I hear
about is avoiding coming to a decision. I think we need to ask
ourselves which is better in terms of safety: to have it generally in
one place or to have 131 different sites?
Talking about trying to have protection and security, how much
security do you think there is in every one of these sites? If you are
talking about September 11, you have to talk a little bit about having
all these sites. We are trying to consolidate some.
So it has been interesting to hear the kinds of reactions that we
have had. The site is there, of course, because Yucca Mountain is 90
miles from the nearest population centers. It is one of the most remote
places in the country. The climate is conducive to storage. There are
multiple national barriers in order that tunnels can be stored. There
is great depth, 2,600 feet deep underneath, an isolated basin.
So this is something that has been selected with a very great deal of
study from a number of places. This is the one that was decided upon to
be the best. So that is where we are.
It is interesting, all we hear about are problems. I think it is up
to us to talk about some solutions. I hope we can do that. In fact, I
think to say this Energy Department material is not useful is a
stretch. Certainly this material has been studied. Experts have put
this information in there.
Some of the information we are hearing lacks a little bit. At the
hearings we held, there was a gentleman who had been the past director
of highway safety who was talking about highways. I asked him who he
was working for. It turned out he had been paid by the State of Nevada.
Talk about people being in support of the idea and causing people to
have their positions the way they are.
Let me talk a minute, though, about transportation. Obviously,
transportation could very well be going through our State of Wyoming,
although, as the Senator from Alaska points out, those decisions have
not been made. Everyone is talking about where it is going to go. That
has not been decided. In fact, I have written a letter to the Secretary
of Energy to ensure, as we move through this particular decision, that
we will move on, then, to an equally difficult decision about
transportation, and also to get assurance--which he has assured us--
that the Governors and officials in the States will coordinate and will
be cooperative workers in terms of deciding what the routes are.
In any event, we have talked a little bit about the history of
transportation. It is very impressive. We have had 30 years of
transportation of nuclear waste of various kinds without an incident.
We have had that over 1.5 million miles. It is handled safely.
I was surprised. At the hearing, they had a sample on the floor of
the kinds of containers that spent nuclear material is in. I had no
idea, frankly, what it was. But they are in solid pellets,
approximately the size of a pencil eraser. And they are secured in
multiple layer metal tubes. They are hard, and they are solid.
Nuclear waste is not fluid. It is not a gas. It will not pour or
evaporate. It is in these big, hard vats that are set up for it.
Nuclear waste, nuclear fuel does not burn, as a matter of fact. It is
not flammable, even if it is engulfed in fire.
Spent nuclear fuel cannot explode. We sort of get the notion that it
is going to go up in a big puff. That is not the case. It is
transported in strong thick-walled casks, casks that have been dropped
from 30 feet in a free fall from helicopters to be tested. And they
have a puncture test with a special way to do it. They have flatbed
trucks that have been smashed into a 700-ton concrete wall at 80 miles
an hour.
There is safety here. Safety, of course, is a high issue for all of
us. No one would suggest it should not be. Most of it will be done by
train, not on the highways. These are the things we will have to deal
with and we will deal with over a period of time.
We should start, of course, with dealing with the question. We have
agreed, in 1982, to take care of this waste, particularly in the
commercial uses that have been there. They have been taxed $17 billion
to do something with it. What they are doing with it now is not the
safest thing that can be done.
I know when you talk about nuclear, everybody swells up, but it is
interesting to also recall that Illinois, for example, generates over
30 percent of their electricity with nuclear. Of course, there is
nuclear waste. But we need to do something with it. We are going to be
moving more toward it.
On the other side, it is one of the cleanest kinds of electric
generating fuels we can have. I guess if I have been impressed by
anything in this discussion, it is that we haven't really dealt with
the problem, How do we solve it? What we have talked about, what we
hear about almost all the time, is how do we avoid making a decision on
an issue that is there, and one that is obviously going to be there
until we do something about it, until we follow through on what we
agreed to do in 1982 and have not done since, and haven't heard much
about, as a matter of fact. We spent $4 billion in Nevada. We didn't
hear much about that. Fine.
I hope we can go ahead and deal with this, support this portion of
the total decision that needs to be made, move forward on this site,
and then deal with the other issues that come before us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will yield to my friend from Michigan in a
second. I do want to say, however, that of course the routes Senator
Boxer talked about are the routes proposed by the DOE in their final
environmental impact statement. They have said they are not sure this
is the final transportation plan they will have, but that is what they
have said so far.
Jim Hall, former head of the National Transportation Safety Board,
said in testimony: What I find more shocking about the Yucca Mountain
project is that DOE has no plan to transport spent nuclear fuel to its
proposed repository.
Secretary Abraham testified last week that DOE is just beginning to
formulate preliminary thoughts about a transportation plan, even though
in

[[Page S6458]]

the final environmental impact statement they did give us these routes
about which Senator Boxer and others have talked.
Puncture tests? Sure, there are puncture tests. We know a shoulder-
fired weapon will go through one of those canisters of spent fuel rods.
We know that. The tests have been proven. We also know they don't
withstand fire. Diesel fuel burns at 1,400 degrees. They have only had
these tests go up to 1,200 degrees. If you have a fire and a diesel
truck is carrying this, it will breach the container.
The things we are being told simply have no validity. We talk all the
time about all this dangerous stuff that has been hauled. Let me tell
you about the WIPP facility. The WIPP facility is the waste isolation
project in New Mexico. WIPP is the most highly planned nuclear shipment
we have ever had. Yet the first shipment went the wrong way, 28 miles
the wrong way, and was turned around by the local police department.
The DOE satellite tracking system didn't work. The truck was going 28
miles the wrong way. It turned around. It was 56 miles on a road on
which they were not supposed to be.
Eighty percent of all traffic accidents are not as a result of
anything going wrong with the equipment; it is human factors. That is
what this is all about.
No harmful releases of radiation? That is laughable, Mr. President.
There have been accidents, and there have been releases over these
2,700 shipments. Some of those have dealt with pounds of stuff, not
tons. On one of these trucks, the cannister alone was 10 tons. There
have been releases over the years that they have been doing this. The
DOE itself says there will be at least 100 accidents. That is in their
proposed findings in the environmental impact statement.
Someone can vote against this with goodness in their heart. They are
doing the right thing. This is not good for the country.
My friend mentioned France and Germany. They may have hauled a lot of
stuff, but they haven't hauled a lot of stuff lately because it has
been stopped in its tracks. Germany has given up trying to haul it
because people lie down in the streets and chain themselves to railroad
tracks.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10
minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Nevada for
their leadership on this very important issue for all of us. I know my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in saying there is
not a more revered Member of this body than our senior Senator from
Nevada. I thank him for his leadership, his intelligence, his
compassion, and his advocacy on this particular issue as well as many
others.
When I was in the Michigan Senate, I helped to lead an effort to stop
putting casks along Lake Michigan and our nuclear facilities because of
my concern about the waste being along Lake Michigan. I certainly still
have that concern. We lost that, and the waste is there.
On first blush, when I was in the House of Representatives, I thought
supporting a permanent nuclear storage site at Yucca Mountain was a
good idea. I want the waste out of Michigan. There is no question about
it. My preference, if we could say, ``Beam me up, Scottie,'' would be
to move the waste out of Michigan.
Unfortunately, by very close examination of the facts and information
from the Department of Energy, their current documents, I have come to
the conclusion that this proposal not only will maintain existing
threats to the Great Lakes but will create new ones, new security
risks, new environmental threats for the Great Lakes and for Michigan
families. I am deeply concerned about that and frustrated because
fundamentally I want the waste out of Michigan. But I do not want to
create more threats in the process.
It goes without saying that the world has changed since September 11.
We know that. We hear that all the time from our President. We say that
on the floor of the Senate practically every day. The world has changed
since September 11.
Since the tragedies in New York and Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, we
have administration officials who daily tell us that we are going to
see further attacks. On May 19 of this year, the Vice President stated
on ``Meet the Press'' that the prospects of a future terrorist attack
against the United States are almost certain and not a matter of if but
when. That should be a concern--and I know it is--for all of us. It
should in some way be a shadow over every decision we make today in
this body for our families, for the families we represent.
On June 10, as we all know--just a month ago--the American people
became aware of a plot to potentially detonate a so-called ``dirty''
bomb which could kill thousands of people and send poisonous nuclear
matter throughout the air, exposing hundreds of thousands more people
to nuclear radiation. This causes me to pause and look at what we are
doing in a new light. September 11 and the ongoing war against
terrorism has, in fact, put this in a new light for me. I have examined
how the nuclear waste from Michigan's storage sites would be
transported across Michigan to Yucca Mountain and, unfortunately, I am
very concerned there is not a plan by the Department of Energy to
protect those shipments from terrorist attack.

I have asked the questions of our State government, I have asked the
questions of our Department of Energy, and I am told, as we have heard
over and over again, that the Department is only beginning to look at
developing a transportation plan and designating transportation routes.
Yet we are asked to decide today on this project without that
information.
I am also very concerned the Department has not implemented any
additional security requirements for transporting nuclear waste since
9-11 to ensure safety and protect the shipments from terrorist attack.
In addition, I am very deeply concerned to find that there is no
Government agency that has conducted full-scale physical tests of the
casks that would be used to transport high-level nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain; nor have these test requirements been reviewed or
strengthened to take into account how the casks would perform under a
potential terrorist attack.
This is a new day. There are new questions and new tests that need to
take place in light of our current reality as Americans.
I am very concerned today, when I pick up the Washington Post and
find that they further reveal that the EPA has been keeping under wraps
a February 2002 report that concludes that they are not fully prepared
to handle a large-scale nuclear, biological, or chemical attack. The
EPA is the primary agency for providing support to State and local
governments in response to a discharge of nuclear or hazardous
materials, and they are not fully prepared to deal with current
security threats.
How well prepared will they be once thousands of nuclear shipments
begin to travel by our schools, our hospitals, through our communities,
our residential neighborhoods, en route to Yucca Mountain.
I also discovered, Mr. President, in my examination of the Department
of Energy's own documents, that most of the waste stored in Michigan
will never make it to Yucca Mountain. That is a pretty big discovery
for me. Most of the waste in Michigan will never make it to Yucca
Mountain. As long as nuclear powerplants operate in Michigan, new
nuclear waste will have to be stored in cooling pools, as indicated by
my colleagues, on the shores of the Great Lakes for 5 years at a time
so they can be cooled before they are transported anywhere. Much of the
nuclear waste in Michigan will not be moved to Yucca Mountain because
Yucca Mountain will reach its full capacity within the first 25 years
of operation.
While I want the waste out of Michigan, away from its shores, We have
a worst case scenario for the people of Michigan. The nuclear waste
will continue to sit on the shores of the Great Lakes and also be
traveling on our roads and railways--and, Heaven forbid, even barges on
the Great Lakes--past our communities, neighborhoods and schools.
Let me speak to that new threat that, unfortunately, is in the
environmental impact statement the Department released just a few
months ago,

[[Page S6459]]

which raised a tremendous red flag for me. The Department of Energy's
final environmental impact statement describes barging nuclear waste on
the Great Lakes as a transportation option. Now, in fairness, they
indicate that while there could be as many as 431 barge shipments of
nuclear waste on Lake Michigan, that is not their preferred option. I
am glad that is not their preferred option, but, unfortunately, when
writing the Secretary, he would not take it off the table as an option.
In fact, he indicated that the Department of Energy ``has made no
decision on the matter.''

I cannot imagine putting high-level nuclear waste on barges and
sending it across Lake Michigan. There is not a plan in the world that
I would support to do that. The answer of the Department on this issue
is simply not good enough. I cannot support any plan that includes a
transportation option that endangers one-fifth of the world's
freshwater supply and the source of drinking water for the entire Great
Lakes region.
Mr. President, today's vote, unfortunately, will be the last time
Congress will have a real voice on this issue. We certainly can express
ourselves as it moves through the regulatory process, but this is the
time for us to say, yes, we know enough to move forward or, no, we do
not. If we say no, we can ask that more information be given to us,
that more tests be done, and that we receive assurances, such as I
need, to know that there will not be, under any circumstances, barging
on the Great Lakes. We can get that information and then we can proceed
again.
This is not the end. We can proceed further--those of us who want
more information, more assurances, and want to know that our
communities will be safe and the environment will be safe. There is no
reason we cannot work on getting those assurances and the plans in
place first.
Based on my examination of the Department of Energy's own documents,
as well as further information, I do not believe this administration
has a safety plan for transporting waste to Yucca Mountain that
protects my citizens, Michigan families, or the Great Lakes. Therefore,
I cannot support the Yucca Mountain resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me point out that the State of
Michigan is currently 18.2 percent dependent on nuclear energy.
Currently, in the State of Michigan, there are 1,627 metric tons of
spent fuel of which 58 tons is in shutdown reactors, and 177 tons is in
dry storage.
As a consequence of the alternatives we face, the recognition is
obvious that if we do not move this waste, it is going to stay where it
is. The nuclear power generation in Michigan consists of four nuclear
units: Cook 1 and 2, Fermi 2, and Palisades. As a consequence of the
recognition that there are six storage locations covering the 1,625
metric tons, we have to address the reality of how much longer the
nuclear plants can continue to operate without a permanent repository.
That is what the contemplated vote is all about.
Questions have been raised by Members concerning the routing. Again,
I point out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves all routes and
security plans with States and tribes, including the Department of
Transportation, Department of Energy and, of course, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. For security, armed guards are required through
heavily populated metropolitan areas if they are indeed selected. At
the discretion of the Governor of each State, all shipments are
required to have 24-hour escorts.
Tracking: The Governor of each State is notified in advance of spent
fuel shipments. These shipments are required to have an escort into the
central transportation command facility every 2 hours to ensure that
problems do not exist. All shipments are closely coordinated with local
and Federal law enforcement agencies.
As far as training, States and tribes have and will continue to
receive Federal support for specific training. On the question of what
is the Government doing with emergency preparedness assistance, since
1950, the Federal Government has had its own experienced teams of
emergency responders. Emergency responders receive assistance and
training from the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation,
FEMA, and others, and are specially trained and prepared to respond to
a variety of incidents and accidents, and DOD will continue to provide
training to emergency responders. The Department has directly trained
over 1,200 responders.
In addition, DOE has trained instructors and have provided training
to additional emergency personnel in the State, tribal, and local
response groups. Training materials have been distributed.

It is fair to say efforts are made to train local government
entities. There is a misconception somehow that if there is an
accident, there is likely to be a fire, some kind of an explosion. That
is not the case. If, indeed, there is a penetration of a cask, which is
extraordinarily unlikely, there will obviously be an awareness, and the
area will be roped off. The material is very heavy. It does not blow
around in the wind. Unless you get in and mess with it, why, it can be
cleaned up by experienced personnel.
This is not a matter, as some suggest, that if there is a
penetration, there is going to be a nuclear explosion of some kind.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and ask how much time is remaining
on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 62\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, when I speak to people throughout
Missouri, security continues to be their primary concern. They are
concerned about threats from abroad and about security in their daily
lives--job security, health care security, retirement security.
In this day and age, when we are making extraordinary efforts to
protect ourselves, people are more fearful than ever about shipments of
nuclear waste through their neighborhoods and communities.
In Missouri, this is especially a sensitive issue because of our
recent history of nuclear waste shipments. Two summers ago, Governor
Carnahan succeeded in getting a shipment rerouted around Missouri. But
last year, the Department of Energy scheduled another shipment to go
through Missouri. The route the Government selected went through the
most populated areas in the State, through the heavily populated
suburbs of St. Louis, straight through Columbia, past Independence, and
then on through Kansas City.
The Government's plan would ship nuclear waste along Interstate 70
and other roads that are crowded and in disrepair. Interstate 70
through Missouri is one of the oldest stretches of Federal interstate
highway in the Nation. The newest stretch is 37 years old. The oldest
stretch is 46 years old. But the original design life was only 20
years.
I-70 is one of the most vital transportation corridors in the Nation.
It is in need of more than just basic maintenance. It is in need of
total reconstruction.
Everyone who travels over I-70 knows it is in horrible condition. The
number and severity of traffic-related accidents along I-70 between
Kansas City and St. Louis have grown steadily in recent years and will
continue to grow with projected increases in travel. Unless the road is
repaired and expanded, conditions will continue to deteriorate,
congestion will increase, and transportation costs will rise.

There are two scenarios: Either I-70 will remain in poor condition
or, as I would prefer, it will undergo massive reconstruction over the
next decade. Either way, I-70 should not be the superhighway for
nuclear waste.
If Yucca Mountain is built, that is exactly what will happen.
Preliminary estimates by the Department of Energy show that within a
25-year period, over 19,000 truck and 4,000 rail shipments of nuclear
waste will go through Missouri on their way to Yucca Mountain. That is
two trucks a day every day passing through St. Louis, Boone County,
Jackson County, and many other counties across the State.

[[Page S6460]]

Unfortunately, the manner in which last year's shipment of nuclear
waste through Missouri was conducted does not inspire confidence in the
way the Department of Energy handles these shipments. While the State
of Missouri and the Department of Energy were negotiating about this
shipment, the Department announced that it would not allow waste from a
research reactor in Columbia, MO, to be shipped out of State.
The linkage of these two issues was inappropriate. While Governor
Holden was negotiating safety protocols, the Department was playing
politics with nuclear waste.
I intervened to ensure these issues would be handled separately so
that the Governor could continue to insist upon proper safety
arrangements for the shipment.
After all this, the shipments showed up in St. Louis at rush hour and
would have passed through Kansas City during a Royals baseball game.
The shipment had to be held at the border for a number of hours.
In my view, we have not focused enough on the transportation issue to
approve the Yucca Mountain site at this time. The transportation casks
have not been thoroughly tested for possible terrorist attack. The
final transportation routes have not been selected, and security of the
truck and train shipments has not been studied. There are no concrete
plans for training emergency responders in local communities along
transportation routes. And, as I mentioned, the roads remain in sad
repair.
All these issues need to be properly addressed before I will consider
voting to approve the Yucca Mountain site. It is more important to make
the right decision than it is to make a quick decision.
Every nuclear reactor in the country has onsite spent fuel. These
storage facilities will continue to be used even if the repository at
Yucca Mountain is built because the spent fuel that comes out of the
reactor must cool for approximately 5 years. Most of these facilities
will be upgraded and expanded if and when necessary, and in Missouri
our single nuclear powerplant will not experience shortage difficulties
until 2024. So there is plenty of time to upgrade and further expand
its storage facility if necessary.
Before committing to ship tons of nuclear waste through the
heartland, I believe we should spend much more time in determining
whether we can transport this waste safely and keep these shipments
away from our most densely populated communities. I am confident that
is what the people of Missouri want.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see a couple of Senators, Mr. Crapo
and Mr. Kyl. I want to point out to the Senator from Missouri that
nuclear energy includes about 13 percent of the power generated in
Missouri. Coal is 82 percent. It is about 95 percent in combination.
Mr. President, 388 metric tons of spent fuel are currently in the
State of Missouri. As a consequence, I think it is important--and if I
can have the attention of the Senator from Missouri--to point out this
transportation route because currently the shipment of waste, this
transuranic waste, goes out of Missouri and routes under this highway
system into New Mexico. There is no proposed existing transportation
route that will be taking the waste through Missouri. This waste is
currently at the University of Missouri research reactor. It goes out
on 70, up on 55, comes over on 880, and down on 25 into New Mexico.
My point is, while it is obviously possible that the Department of
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Department of
Transportation would choose other routes, it is clear to point out that
currently there has been and there is no logic to suggest there would
be a movement of waste through the State of Missouri when currently
transportation routes to WIPP do not go through Missouri; they actually
remove waste from the State of Missouri.
We should keep these discussions in the context of accuracy relative
to what is contemplated vis-a-vis the current transportation route.
I yield to my friend from Idaho for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Alaska
for his graciousness in yielding me this time.
I rise today to add my voice and my strong, unequivocal support for
Senate Joint Resolution 34, a resolution approving development of a
permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV,
notwithstanding the disapproval of the Governor of Nevada.
Before I get into my main remarks, I wish to talk a moment about my
colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, who, as a member of the
Energy Committee in the Senate, has been tireless in his efforts to
make certain that the procedural maneuvers and the substantive debate
over this issue move forward expeditiously and that we address the
issues that the law provides so we can make certain the Yucca Mountain
facility is able to maneuver forward into the permitting process.
As many of those who have debated today have already stated, this
debate is not about whether to open the Yucca Mountain facility so much
as it is about allowing the process of permitting to begin to take
place. As my colleagues know, this is the required legislative
procedure spelled out by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
In 1982, 20 years ago, Congress made the decision we should begin
resolving this issue and set forth a series of legislative and other
procedures that must be followed to assure that every question--that of
national security, safety, of individual State rights, and all the
other issues--were adequately addressed as we deal with this critical
issue. Over those 20 years, the importance of dealing with this issue
has grown.
Now the issue of the role of nuclear power in the portfolio of
America's energy policy and the manner in which we will resolve the
handling of the spent nuclear fuel has become a national security
issue, in my opinion.
I come to this debate with a long history of working on this issue.
The State of Idaho, which I have the honor to represent, hosts the
Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, NEEL, which currently stores a large volume of spent
nuclear fuel and high level nuclear waste.
The INEEL now has 56.5 percent by volume and 11 percent by weight of
all spent nuclear fuel in the DOE complex. This spent nuclear fuel
includes the Navy's spent nuclear fuel, the spent fuel and rubble from
Three Mile Island and other commercial power plants, foreign research
reactor fuel that is coming to the United States from other countries
for nonproliferation reasons, and spent fuel from the dozens of
reactors operated at the INEEL, Argonne-West, and other DOE facilities
throughout the country. Under the Idaho Settlement Agreement, the
Navy's spent nuclear fuel in Idaho must be some of the first fuel to go
into Yucca Mountain.
Defense high-level waste is the waste that resulted from reprocessing
spent nuclear fuel. At the INEEL, this high level waste is in
granulated ``calcine'' form. DOE is currently deciding how this high
level waste can be prepared and shipped to Yucca Mountain. In the past,
DOE looked at turning this waste into glass logs in a vitrification
plant as required by law, but Bechtel and DOE now hope they can make
direct shipments of the calcine waste to Yucca Mountain using a
standard package similar to that used for spent fuel.
The INEEL also manages the DOE National Spent Nuclear Fuel program.
This program performs the analysis and technology development to
support inclusion of DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel in the repository
license application. As Yucca opens, this program will play a larger
role for DOE and the INEEL.
Because of the history of the INEEL, located near my hometown of
Idaho Falls, I have been involved in nuclear issues for many years. I
visited Yucca Mountain and I have seen the dry, isolated location
President Bush has recommended as the site for our Nation's permanent
repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.

[[Page S6461]]

Right now, across the Nation spent nuclear fuel is stored in
temporary facilities near cities, homes, schools, rivers, lakes, and
oceans. These temporary storage facilities were never intended for
long-term storage, but they have become that because our Nation has
bent over backwards to do all of the science needed to ensure permanent
storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain can be done safely. After
spending billions of dollars, our Nation's best scientists say nuclear
waste can be stored safely at Yucca Mountain. No one can dispute the
logic that it makes more sense for the environment, for national
security, and for our Nation's energy policy to store spent nuclear
fuel in one isolated location in the desert of Nevada instead of
leaving it scattered across the country at over 130 temporary
facilities.
Some of the opponents of Yucca Mountain say we should not support
S.J. Res. 34 and development of Yucca Mountain because we cannot safely
transport this material. To these opponents I say we have safely sent
thousands of shipments of nuclear waste across the country for decades.
I know other speakers have already repeated this information before.
But it is critical to reiterate that in this country we have seen 1.7
million miles of shipments conducted safely without a release of
radioactivity. That is over 2,700 shipments. As the Senator from Alaska
said earlier, in Europe where they have been doing this for two and a
half decades, they have had over 70,000 tons of radioactive material
safely transported. Compare that record to the risk that we would face
if we do not transport it.
For those in favor of stopping the development of Yucca Mountain, the
issue of terrorism has been raised. If we have over 131 sites across
this country where much of this material is not stored safely--in a
remote underground facility--the risk of terrorism would rise. Even the
risk from a hypothetical earthquake would be much greater at the 131
sites if they were left untreated or unresolved than at one central
underground location that is safe, secure, and protected.
Whether one is looking at the safety record of transportation or the
risk of leaving these facilities with the stored nuclear fuel in them
spread throughout the country in unsafe conditions, the conclusion must
be that for our safety, for the environment, and for our national
security, we must move toward one underground, safe depository.
There is also an equity issue before the Senate. For decades, energy
users across this country who have received their electricity from
nuclear power have paid a surcharge on their energy bill to pay the
Federal Government to dispose of this waste. The Federal Government
faithfully collected these fees and assumed the responsibility under
law for developing a nuclear repository. Now after collecting these
fees and doing the necessary science, the Federal Government has an
obligation to provide for the permanent disposition of spent nuclear
fuel.
Development of the repository at Yucca Mountain will greatly enhance
our Nation's energy balance by demonstrating that we can dispose of
nuclear waste created by nuclear power. Today, with our dependence on
foreign oil for so much of our energy supply, it is critical we broaden
our energy portfolio in this country. When one looks at the amount of
money we pay to nations such as Iraq for oil, when we could expand our
reliance on other sources of energy, including nuclear power, one has
to recognize the national security implications of this vote today.
Nuclear power should play a greater role in our Nation's energy
portfolio. A path forward for spent nuclear fuel will remove one
bottleneck in the nuclear energy fuel cycle. Under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, if Congress does not approve this resolution, the Yucca
Mountain project cannot go forward. There will not be a nuclear
repository at Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste in 39 States across this
country will stay where it is.
I ask my colleagues, Are we going to vote today to leave spent
nuclear fuel and nuclear waste in New York, Vermont, Illinois, Georgia,
Michigan, Connecticut, Washington, Idaho, and the many other States in
which it is now located or are we going to move forward with a
permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel that makes sense for this
Nation and the environment? I urge strongly my colleagues to vote in
favor of S.J. Res. 34.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Alaska said if something
happens and one of these casks is breached, there will be an explosion.
But understand, standing within 3 feet of a spent fuel rod is a lethal
dose--three feet. It will kill you. It may not kill you immediately.
But you are dead. It will kill you pretty quickly.
As has been brought out by my friend from Nevada, the shipments are
not dangerous, relatively speaking.
I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nevada to talk about that.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I do want to address the map that the
junior Senator from Alaska has put up over here. When he was talking to
the Senator from Missouri, talking about the transportation through
Missouri, he was saying these things are already happening, going
through Missouri, going through her State, because that was the major
reason she was voting against the Yucca Mountain proposal.
This is not the same kind of waste that is going to Yucca Mountain;
otherwise, you would need a different kind of repository. This is not
as high a level of nuclear waste as is coming to Nevada. So to equate
the two is irresponsible, I believe. We should not even have that map
on the floor.
I want to clear up two other quick things. The first is, the Senator
from Idaho just said, Isn't it better to have one site? If, in fact, we
had one site, and we are going to have all the nuclear waste at one
site, that would be true. Except we are not going to have just one
site. We are going to continue to have sites all over the United States
with nuclear waste. Here is a very simple graph to understand.
Currently we have 45,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in America. By
the time Yucca Mountain is supposed to start receiving waste in 2010,
we will have 65,000 metric tons. When Yucca Mountain is completed in
2036, it will have 70,000 metric tons in Yucca Mountain, but because we
are producing new nuclear waste every year, spread around the country
still will be 47,000 metric tons, virtually the same as we have today
spread out all over the country.
The Senator from Idaho has a very good argument to get the stuff out
of his State. He has one of the few good arguments, but everybody else
does not: If you have nuclear powerplants in your State, you will
continue to have nuclear waste in your State for as long as you have
nuclear powerplants operating.
It is not a question of national security. It is going to be safer to
have it in one site. But we are still going to have all these other
sites, so national security is focused on transportation more than it
is anything else.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to yield 10 minutes to the
Presiding Officer in a second.
Another thing my friend from Alaska said is it is not going to travel
through Missouri. This is one of the problems. It is like the
``immaculate reception.'' One day we will wake up and it is suddenly
going to be there. I don't know, there are no transportation routes,
but it will get there because the DOE says it will.
It can only go by train, truck, or barge, and for barge
transportation, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
only tests that have been done are by computer. They have never stuck
one of them in the water. It has all been done by computer.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
(Mr. REID assumed the chair.)
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the deputy majority leader for
yielding this time to me.
On the floor this afternoon I see three, maybe four Senators--four of
whom I have been privileged to serve with in the House of
Representatives, one of whom I have just been privileged to serve with
for the last year and a half.
The senior Senator from Nevada knows the great affection I hold for
him. He and I were elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. We
came to Congress together in 1982. We began our first years in the
House of Representatives many mornings working out together in the
House gym. I

[[Page S6462]]

have had the privilege of knowing his family and watching his kids grow
up. For me, and I know for many of us, this important policy decision
is also a decision that is intertwined with the respect and admiration
we have for our colleagues. I have great respect and admiration for
both the senior and junior Senator from Nevada.
As some of you know, I spent a fair number of my years in the Navy, 5
years on active duty, another 18 years as a Reserve naval flight
officer, most of that time on airplanes but other times on ships. I
have been on ships that are nuclear powered. They included aircraft
carriers and submarines. I have known hundreds of people who lived many
years of their lives on nuclear-powered vessels. When you have that
kind of background, you are maybe more comfortable with nuclear power
than those who have not literally lived on a floating nuclear
powerplant.
I acknowledge there are a lot of people who have legitimate concerns
about the various aspects of nuclear power--a few of them have been
pretty well vetted here today. One of them is transportation: how to
move this nuclear waste through dozens of States and do so safely,
especially in an age of terrorism.
There are concerns about the terrorists themselves and whether or not
they might strike, either at a site such as Yucca Mountain or at a
barge or a railroad or a highway.
Before I served in the Senate a year and a half ago, I served as
Governor of Delaware. During those years, I became all the more mindful
of the transportation of hazardous waste through my State and alongside
my State via the Delaware River and the bay which divides the State of
the Presiding Officer and my State. Every day hazardous materials make
their way up and
down the Delaware River. Throughout
I-95/I-495, which crosses my State and the railroads of my State, the
Norfolk Southern and CSX, we have dangerous materials every day
traverse throughout Delaware--sometimes hazardous materials, sometimes
explosive materials. We have learned to deal with them and deal with
them safely. In Europe, they have shown a record over time of being
able to transport nuclear waste in a way that is safe as well.
I know people who are concerned about nuclear power because of the
possibility there will be an accident at a nuclear powerplant. I
acknowledge those concerns are not illegitimate. The safety record of
the nuclear power industry has been better in the last 10 years than
probably in all the years before, and it continues to improve.
While I acknowledge, on the one hand, the legitimate concerns about
nuclear power being a viable, growing part of the generation of
electricity in our country, I want to talk briefly about the virtues,
the advantages of nuclear power. We had a great debate on energy policy
over the earlier part of this year. We talked about the growing demand,
the rise in price of foreign oil, now up 50 percent. We talked about
the huge and growing trade deficit we have in this country, over $300
billion last year, maybe $400 billion this year, and a significant part
of that is oil imports.

I think we have begun a serious discussion and debate about what to
do with respect to air emissions, how we can curtail sulfur dioxide,
mercury, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide from powerplants in this
country and other sources.
Nuclear power, whether we like it or not, does not create sulfur
dioxide emissions. It doesn't create mercury emissions. It doesn't
create nitrogen oxide emissions. It doesn't create carbon dioxide
emissions--it doesn't contribute to those. With respect to our
environment and the quality of our air, I think nuclear power is, if
anything, a friend.
I, as have a number of my colleagues, had a chance to go to Yucca
Mountain. I visited the place. I talked to people who worked on that
project for any number of years. I met with people in Nevada who oppose
the designation of Yucca Mountain and those who favor it. I have had
the opportunity along with many of my colleagues to participate in
hours of hearings and other meetings with advocates and opponents of
designating Yucca Mountain and licensing Yucca Mountain.
In the end it comes down to maybe two votes: one, a procedural vote
as to whether or not we are going to vote to proceed to the final vote
and that is one that would carry on to the licensing of Yucca Mountain.
I said to my colleagues on the Energy Committee a month or so ago, I
have agonized with this vote probably as much as any in my memory,
trying to do, on the one hand, what I think is the right thing for my
country and trying to treat my dear colleagues the way I would want to
be treated. It is a tough call. It is tough for me and I know it is for
many of us.
We have two votes. On the first vote, on the motion to proceed, if my
vote is needed--and I am going to stand in the well there--if my vote
is needed in order to be able to proceed to the final vote, I will vote
yes--if my vote is needed.
On the final vote, if the motion to proceed is approved, I will vote
yes on the designation of Yucca Mountain.
With that, I thank the deputy majority leader for yielding his time
to me.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to respond very briefly, under the
agreement, there will be a rollcall vote on the motion to proceed; then
the agreement is that there will be a voice vote on the final
resolution.
Mr. CARPER. I appreciate that. When we vote, I will be here to vote.
When the yeas and nays are asked for, my voice will say yes on that
final vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska, having served here
as long as he has, has certainly on occasion when there has been a
voice vote wanted to be listed as voting yes or no. That certainly can
be stated in the Record. I have done it on a number of occasions
myself.
Senator Ensign and I wish to speak longer. Senator Kyl is here. It is
my understanding you would like to yield some time to him.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, would you advise me on how much time is
remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator has 50 minutes.
Mr. REID. How about here?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five minutes remains for the Senator
from Nevada.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me make a general statement, and also preliminarily comment on
the debate that has been conducted by the two Senators from the State
of Nevada. They have been tenacious in the representation of their
position. I take no pleasure in opposing their position. They are both
fine Senators and are extraordinarily good at representing the
interests of their constituents in this particular case. I know it is
not just a matter of representing the people who have spoken out from
the State of Nevada. I have talked to Senator Ensign a lot, and he has
argued his case with a lot of personal conviction that you don't always
see in this body. I commend both of them and make the point that I take
no pleasure in opposing them.
I do, however, strongly believe it is time for us to move forward
with this process, and the next step in the process is the approval of
this legislation. Then there are other things that have to be done,
including the Department of Energy action.
I want to make a comment about this issue of the storage of nuclear
waste because the Palo Verde nuclear-generating station just west of
the city of Phoenix is the biggest in the country. It is a huge,
successful, good nuclear-generating station. It stores an awful lot of
waste. In fact, I believe, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute,
more than 45,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste are housed
at the 131 sites in 39 States--sites such as Palo Verde.
If we don't use a storage facility such as Yucca Mountain, the
problem only gets worse. Each year, about 2,000 more tons of
radioactive waste are being added to the total.
Senator Ensign made the point that even if we have a site such as
Yucca Mountain, of course, we are still going to have the other storage
sites around the country. That is very true. But I think it begs the
question of what we are going to do with the majority of this waste.

It is a little like saying since every Wednesday morning everybody in
my

[[Page S6463]]

area of Phoenix is going to put their garbage out, and because we keep
producing garbage, we should not have a dump to where all of that
garbage is taken. It is certainly true that every Wednesday everybody
is going to put their garbage out. We produce more garbage, and to
store it onsite is in effect storing it on the curb. That doesn't argue
for the proposition that there should not be a central repository where
that material is taken and disposed of in a proper way.
That is what we are talking about here. We are going to continue to
produce waste. There will have to be a place to temporarily store it at
each of these nuclear-generating facilities around the country. But
eventually, when it cools off, it is put into these casks and
transported to Yucca Mountain. That is where most of the scientists
have decided is the right place to put it.
As a matter of fact, the scientific reports of the Department of
Energy conclude that a repository at Yucca Mountain would protect the
public health and safety in accordance with the EPA and NRC guidelines.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is in support. The Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board is in support. The experts on the National
Academy of Sciences panel who recommended the site note that there is
``worldwide scientific consensus'' for the idea.
I might also add that there is now a new element that is injected
into the debate. That is the element of terrorism. We can't talk about
that a lot on the floor of the Senate. I am on the Intelligence
Committee. I can assure my colleagues that it is a significant issue to
have this waste dispersed at a variety of sites around the country in
the conditions that currently pertain. It would be much better if we
were able to take a majority of it, when we could, to one site that is
clearly safe from terrorism. Yucca Mountain is a remote location. It is
100 miles away from the nearest metropolitan area. It has the highest
security--again, because of its general proximity to the Nevada Test
Site and Nellis Air Force Range. Those are reasons we think it is
important to go ahead with the next step of the process and get this
material to Yucca.
With respect to transportation, we know that there have been a lot of
questions raised. But the truth is we have had 45 years of experience
and 3,000 successful shipments of used nuclear fuel. That is not
exactly the same as this fuel, but we have much better casks now--these
steel casks that have been described in detail here on the floor that
will be used for the transportation of the material.
There have been no radiation releases, fatalities, or injuries, nor
any environmental damage that has occurred as a result of the
transportation of this radioactive cargo in the past.
I am a little distressed by the fact that people have been scared. I
am very disappointed that some people--clearly not those on the floor
of the Senate today--but there are some who have really attempted to
scare people in individual communities with the notion that somehow
there will be some great catastrophe as a result of the transportation
of this material. That is so unlikely as to be something that should
not be of concern to us as we move forward with this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to recognize that at some point something has to
be done. We can't just allow the waste to sit where it is. There is a
safe, scientifically proven location where the material can be stored.
The transportation has also been throughly considered by the scientific
community. A method for transporting it has been developed. Sandia
Laboratories, which has done a lot of testing, assures us it would
withstand the most extreme accident scenarios.
For all of these reasons, I think it is important for us to move on,
get beyond this next step, and allow the DOE now to look at this Yucca
Mountain site for licensing.
Again, I commend all of my colleagues for the way in which this
debate has been conducted. This is an emotional issue with a lot of
people around this country. But the debate has been responsible and
serious and based upon good science. I commend both the proponents and
the opponents for the way they have conducted this debate.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am prepared to vote in support of
S.J. Res. 34 which approves the site at Yucca Mountain for the
development of a repository for spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, but I do so with great caution.
The vote we cast today does not give carte blanche to move this
waste. Instead, it signals a continuation of a process begun in
Congress more than two decades ago. The risks are not insignificant and
in the coming months and years many steps must be satisfied and many
scientific tests undertaken before a license is issued by the Nuclear
Regulator Commission and a single shipment of waste is moved. In
addition, there must be open dialogue among industry, organizations,
transportation experts, and government entities at the Federal, State,
and local level to determine a safe and workable transportation system.
If the ongoing scientific, environmental, or public safety tests are
not satisfactory, or a transportation system is deemed unworkable, then
the site should not be licensed.
For Congress to stop the process today with no viable, permanent
alternative solution on the table is short-sighted and wrong. I
recognize the limitations on the amount of waste that Yucca Mountain
can accept and the length of time it will take to transport the waste.
I further understand that some waste will necessarily remain on site at
individual facilities even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, as nuclear
reactors continue to operate and generate waste.
But to keep all of the current and future waste on-site at
approximately 100 sites in above ground storage is not a prudent long-
term solution. In fact, many facilities will be reaching their storage
capacity long before their licenses expire. For these reasons, while we
continue to move forward with Yucca Mountain, we must also step up our
security at all the nuclear facilities sites around the country. If all
systems are a go with Yucca, it will be at least 10 years before any
waste is moved.
My record is clear. I have supported nuclear power and the obligation
of the Federal Government to take responsibility for nuclear waste. I
am one of a handful of current Senators who was here in 1982 to vote on
the National Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I supported that
initiative and again in 1987, I supported amendments to the 1982 act
which singled out Yucca Mountain to be examined as a nuclear waste
repository. However, I have voted against both the idea of interim,
above ground consolidated storage and moving forward with the process
before the Secretary of Energy formally recommended Yucca Mountain.
No one knows the costs and benefits of nuclear energy more than the
residents of my State. Connecticut has two operating nuclear facilities
and two permanently shut down facilities that are undergoing
decommissioning. Nuclear energy provides more than 45 percent of the
electricity generated in Connecticut. Only Vermont, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, Illinois and South Carolina have a larger percentage of
electricity generated by nuclear power.
It is a fact that while I have supported nuclear power, I have also
been one of its most vocal critics when I believed the industry and
oversight agencies failed to exercise appropriate controls over the
facilities in my State.
I have also been a champion of the need for alternative energy
sources, including renewables, to meet our growing energy needs and
offset our dependance on energy sources that generate waste, pollute
our environment and cause public health concerns. I applaud people,
including many of my colleagues, who champion these issues, drive fuel
efficient and cleaner burning automobiles, and make personal choices to
use alternative energy sources in their daily lives.
We will be judged by future generations not only by the decisions we
make in the coming months and years regarding nuclear waste, but also
by the bold choices we make regarding our future energy security and
the health and welfare of our planet.
This is not a perfect solution, but a reasonable step if the risks
can be managed. I hope that it will be looked upon as such in years to
come.

[[Page S6464]]

Having said that, while I support the substance of this resolution, I
voted against the motion to proceed. As chairman of the Rules
Committee, I take the rules of the Senate very seriously. It is my
belief that despite what may have been written into the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982 and 1987, I believe it is the fundamental
prerogative of the Majority Leader to set the agenda of the Senate. My
understanding is that at no time in the recent history of the Senate
has that prerogative been violated. Moreover, I fail to see why my
colleagues felt the need to violate that prerogative today. There are
still more than 2 weeks to bring this matter to the floor under
established practices of the Senate. Furthermore, it is worth noting
that this matter was brought up by the minority during the middle of a
very important debate to address wrongdoings and shortcomings in the
accounting industry and corporate sector. I want to make this very
clear, my vote against the motion to proceed was not against S.J.
Resolution 34, but out of respect for the practices and prerogatives of
the Senate. If there had been a recorded vote on S.J. Res. 34, I would
have voted aye.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of establishing
a permanent nuclear repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Establishing
a single site for high-level nuclear waste is the best thing we can do
to meet our growing energy needs in an environmentally sound manner,
support our domestic economy, and protect our national security.
One of my goals in coming to the Senate was to enact a comprehensive
U.S. energy policy that harmonizes our energy and environmental needs.
I worked hard with my colleagues on the Energy bill and after 6 weeks
of debate, this body finally passed legislation that does just that.
Our challenge in the energy bill was to encourage development of
domestic energy sources in a balanced way that respects seemingly
competing needs, the economy and the environment. These are not
competing needs, however. A sustainable environment is critical to a
strong economy, and a sustainable economy is critical to providing the
funding necessary to improve our environment.
In order to maintain a strong economy, we will have to produce more
energy to keep up with the growing demand. According to the Department
of Energy, we need to increase by 30 percent the amount of energy we
produce in the United States by 2015 in order to meet our county's
demand. To ensure that consumers have access to low-cost, reliable
energy, we must make use of every available resource instead of putting
all of our eggs in one basket. We need to increase our production of
oil, gas, coal, nuclear energy, and renewables. Keep in mind that only
two-tenths of 1 percent of our total electricity comes from wind and
solar power. At the same time, we need to continue to increase
conservation efforts which have already substantially contributed to
reducing our reliance on imports. We simply must diversify the source
of our energy supply and we can do so while protecting our precious
natural resources.
One of our great untapped resources is nuclear energy. It is an
important part of meeting our Nation's energy needs and harmonizing our
energy and environmental policies. Over the past 40 years, we have seen
how safe and reliable nuclear energy can be. We use it today.
Nationally, we obtain 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear energy
plants and in my State of Ohio, nuclear power provides 12 percent of
our total.
But this level is far below what other countries do. For example,
France derives 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; Sweden
uses 39 percent; South Korea 41 percent; and Japan uses 34 percent.
One of the reasons these countries use so much nuclear energy is that
it produces zero harmful air emissions. None. I am not sure that many
people realize this. Throughout my career, I have been actively
involved in the debate concerning how to reduce emissions from power
plants and continue to provide safe and reliable electricity to
consumers. This has been difficult, however, because so many so-called
environmentalists raise issue with all of our energy alternatives.
For example, here's what they say: coal, which supplies 52 percent of
our energy, is too dirty. Hydropower, which supplies 7.3 percent of our
total energy, is criticized because the dams can disrupt the ecosystem.
Due to lengthy and complicated environmental regulations, it is nearly
impossible to build new pipelines for natural gas, which supplies 16
percent of our energy. Even windmills, the source so many of my
colleagues point to, has siting difficulties due to their noise and
unsightly appearance. Nuclear power, which supplies 20 percent, has
been demonized because of the waste issue, which can be solved.
The science for using nuclear energy has been rapidly developing over
the past several decades and nuclear energy offers one of the best
alternatives for the future: a clean-burning and reliable source of
energy.
Since 1973, the use of nuclear energy has prevented 62 million tons
of sulfur dioxide and 32 million tons of nitrogen oxide from being
released into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy also releases none of the
so-called greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide. In fact,
according to the Energy Information Administration, nuclear power has
offset more than 3.1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions between
1960 and 2000 that would have been generated by fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy has incredible potential as an efficient and clean
source of energy, yet we face some major impediments that prevent us
from taking full advantage of its benefits. During consideration of the
energy bill, I offered two amendments to address these problems and
promote the growth of nuclear energy. Both amendments were included in
the Senate version of the energy bill, and I hope the conferees will
keep them in the final version.
The first amendment reauthorizes the Price-Anderson program, which
provides liability protection to the public paid by the industry. The
second amendment provides needed Nuclear Regulatory Commission reforms
to address the human capital crisis that is impacting the NRC, improves
licensing and decommissioning oversight, and strengthens anti-trust
protections by moving the review process from the NRC to the Justice
Department.
But the biggest impediment to the growth of nuclear energy could not
be addressed in the energy bill and that is what brings us here today.
Congress recognized the importance and necessity of having one storage
site for spent nuclear fuel in 1982 with the passage of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, which was signed into law. That law required the
Department of Energy to locate, build, and operate a deep, mined
geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste.
In response to this law, the Energy Department identified, studied,
and selected viable potential sites for this purpose. In 1987, Congress
then amended the law and designated Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the only
site that could be considered and stipulated the further study was
required to determine whether that site was suitable.
Congress stipulated that the nuclear waste storage facility was to be
completed by January 31, 1998. Obviously, this deadline has not been
met because the Energy Department wanted to be thorough and base their
decision on science. Some of my colleagues would have you believe that
this was a rash decision. On the contrary, Secretary Abraham
recommended Yucca Mountain after two decades and $7 billion of
scientific research.
In addition, President Bush affirmed this recommendation. The House
of Representatives affirmed this recommendation overwhelmingly by a
vote of 306 to 117 in May. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources affirmed this recommendation by a vote of 13 to 10 in June.
Now it is the Senate's turn.
All of this support is based on science. This is exactly what we want
to see in the formation of public policy; science driving the policy.
Yucca Mountain is located approximately 90 miles from Las Vegas in an
area that averages about seven inches of rainfall a year. The Energy
Department does not expect water to come into contact with any of the
nuclear material that will be stored there for more than 10,000 years.
Surrounded by unsaturated rock layers, nuclear waste would be stored
approximately 1,000 feet above any water, which is still about 1,000
feet below ground.

[[Page S6465]]

Even if water somehow infiltrated Yucca Mountain and corroded the
seal and then penetrated the robust fuel containers before 10,000 years
passed, natural and engineered barriers would prevent or limit any
release of radiation. Furthermore, Yucca Mountain is located in a
hydrologic basin, in which water does not connect to any rivers,
oceans, or the groundwater system that serves Las Vegas. Through years
of scientific research, it has been determined that the site is secure
and that radiation exposure to the public would be well below both the
stringent EPA limits and natural background radiation levels.
Let me emphasize: The resolution we are considering allows the Yucca
Mountain program to continue to the next step; it is not the end of the
process. The site must still go through a rigorous licensing review,
which is expected to last up to five years. Moreover, the NRC still
must address a whole host of issues including monitoring and testing
programs, quality assurance, personnel training, and certification,
emergency planning, and more.
Additionally, the NRC must use standards adopted by the EPA
specifically and exclusively for Yucca Mountain. These strict standards
provide that an engineered barrier system should be designed to work in
combination with natural barriers so that, for 10,000 years following
disposal, the expected radiation dose to an individual would not exceed
15 millirems total effective dose equivalent per year, and 4 millirems
per year for groundwater exposure.
These are exceedingly stringent standards designed to protect the
public from any harmful exposure, now or in the future. To illustrate
what the numbers mean, let me offer two examples. In Denver, Colorado,
due to the higher altitude and cosmic radiation from the sun and stars,
residents are subject to at least 15 millirems of radiation more per
year than people who live in my hometown of Cleveland. On average,
Americans are exposed to 4 millirems of radiation per year through the
naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the 140 pounds of potatoes
that an individual eats on average each year.
This rigorous licensing process combined with the full completion of
the site is expected to take 10 years. Therefore, unlike most of the
attention this matter has received in the media, our action in the
Senate will not begin the transportation of nuclear waste to the
repository. Instead, this resolution simply affirms the science behind
the project and allows the experts to continue to move ahead with their
analyses and reviews.
While some people have concerns about the transportation of nuclear
waste, many people may not realize that nuclear waste has been shipped
across our country since 1964 and that it has an amazing track record
of safety. During this period, more than 3,000 shipments have traveled
1.7 million miles on roads and railways with only eight minor
accidents: no injuries, fatalities, or release of any radiation.
There are two reasons for this success. First, the containers for the
waste have been tested rigorously under extreme conditions, including
being dropped from buildings, hit by trains, and burned at high
temperatures. Second, there are numerous safety measures that federal
agencies and state and local governments have developed, including
satellite positioning, designation of special routes, police escorts,
inspections, and emergency response planning.
Over the next 10 years as new scientific discoveries are made, it is
likely that new regulations, procedures, and technology will offer
further improvements to the safety and security of transporting spent
nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. And the NRC in conjunction with other
federal agencies will continue to examine the safest and most effective
means of transport and storage.
Failure to approve this resolution will have serious costs to our
economy and national security. Our nation has already spent $7 billion
over 20 years researching this specific site. The greater cost is the
current danger we face across our nation with 131 facilities in 39
states storing more than 40,000 tons of spent nuclear material. To put
these numbers in perspective, about 160 million Americans live within
75 miles of these sites.
Establishment of a repository at Yucca Mountain would allow all of
the nuclear waste to be stored in one place, underground in a remote
location. The site is on federal property with restricted access to the
land and airspace, and as a further safeguard, the Nellis Air Force
Range is nearby. From a national security perspective, one site is
easier to defend then many facilities scattered throughout the nation.
The current situation is also costly in terms of capacity. The
facilities which currently store this spent fuel are only designed to
be used on an interim basis and space is limited. The Energy Department
estimates that replacement facilities at each interim site would have
to be built every 100 years with major repairs every half century.
Nuclear power is a necessary and sound part of our energy future that
makes sense for our environment and our economy. Furthermore, because
it protects national security and the safety of all Americans, I urge
my colleagues to listen to the science and support this resolution to
affirm the President's recommendation to establish a permanent nuclear
repository at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. ALLARD. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In
1987, after being ranked as the site that possessed the best technical
and scientific characteristics to serve as a repository, the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act was amended to direct the Department of Energy to
study Yucca Mountain as a potential storage site.
The Federal Government has spent over 20 years and $8 billion
analyzing and studying potential sites for disposal of nuclear waste.
This serious investment of money and human capital has led to the clear
conclusion that Yucca Mountain is indeed scientifically and technically
suitable for development.
As a result of this massive effort, on February 14, 2002, Secretary
of Energy Spencer Abraham formally recommended to President Bush that
the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada be developed as the Nation's first
long-term geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. I fully
support this designation, and I will vote to move forward with the
process, allowing the bipartisan regulatory experts at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to make a final determination of whether to allow
storage at the site.
Colorado, and indeed the Nation, has much to gain from the opening of
Yucca Mountain. Material that is currently scattered throughout the
United States will finally find a safe long-term shelter at Yucca
Mountain--isolated in the remote Nevada desert.
Those opposed to opening Yucca continue to argue about the method of
delivery to Yucca Mountain. Much has already been said in this respect,
but I would like to point out that in the last 40 years, more than
3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have traveled 1.6 million miles
in the United States with no radiation related injuries or deaths. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has performed numerous safety tests on
the multi-layered containers that carry the nuclear substance. These
tests, often exceeding regulatory requirements, have never yielded any
negative or potentially harmful results. Additionally, nuclear waste is
a solid that is not flammable and cannot explode. The casks have
surpassed expectations during rigid drop tests, puncture tests, heat
exposure trials and submergence drills.
Public safety has always been a priority, but has become even more
important in this unprecedented time of threat to our national
security. I believe that the centralization of our used nuclear waste
1,000 feet beneath the earth's surface in a single, highly secure
location is preferable to the current scattered distribution of nuclear
waste in 131 temporary surface facilities in 39 States.
Without Yucca Mountain, the fuel at the Fort St. Vrain facility will
remain there indefinitely. This means that the 2.6 million people in
Colorado that live within 75 miles of a nuclear facility will continue
to live in close proximity; our citizens will be forced to wait another
20 years and spend 8 billion more taxpayer dollars to find another
suitable site. Without Yucca

[[Page S6466]]

Mountain, major metropolitan areas in my State will still have only 20
miles between their town limits and a nuclear facility that stores fuel
above ground. Without Yucca Mountain, waste being stored at facilities
that are safely designed to hold waste for 50 to 100 years will have to
wait untold years for a new destination, costing billions of dollars.
Without a favorable decision on Yucca Mountain, a facility that is
designed to store nuclear material safely for 10,000 years will shut
down.
It is important to note that this vote does not mean that Yucca
Mountain will open tomorrow. What it does mean, is that the next phase
of science can begin in earnest--highly skilled nuclear experts will
determine whether the facility merits a license to begin accepting the
material. After that, any shipping is subject to strict Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines
and regulations, and would not begin, if Yucca is finally approved,
until 2010.
I support the Yucca Mountain Project, and will continue to be an
active participant in the debate. I encourage my fellow colleagues to
support the project, and fulfill the requirements of the law imposed by
Congress some 20 years ago.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is
preparing to vote on the resolution that would allow continued
evaluation of Yucca Mountain's suitability for a high-level nuclear
waste repository. I compliment Senator Bingaman on his resolution and
on his success in reporting that resolution out of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee.
Members don't need to be reminded of the vital role that nuclear
energy plays in our national security. There is no question that it
directly impacts our environmental security and our energy security.
Without nuclear energy, we would have far dirtier skies and be far more
dependent on foreign energy supplies.
I have argued repeatedly that our nation must maintain nuclear energy
as a viable energy source far into the future. With advanced
technologies, it can become a fuel for centuries into the future. Its
clean reliable baseload power will be essential in powering our
economic growth for future generations, just as it is a vital component
of today's economic successes.
For nuclear energy to continue to support our economy, we must
address the waste issue. There is no denying that these wastes
represent an area of risk but every energy source requires a balance of
benefits and risks. The risks associated with nuclear waste are ones
that we can fully control.
I am well aware that hundreds of outstanding issues have been
identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And the Department is
well aware that they must address each and every one of the NRC issues
before the Commission is going to move towards a final license.
In many meetings with the NRC chairman, as well as many of the
commissioners, I have always been impressed with their intent to deal
with this, or any licensing issue, through careful study of the
relevant scientific facts. The NRC has the expertise to evaluate these
outstanding issues, and I am confident that they will do so with great
care.
It is not up to the U.S. Senate to decide on the complex scientific
issues that will eventually determine the fate of a license for Yucca
Mountain. Our vote today is solely on the question of whether the
licensing process continues.
I have been very sorry to see the overblown concerns on
transportation by those who wish to block further evaluation of Yucca
Mountain. Apparently the opponents of Yucca Mountain are so intent on
winning this battle that they are willing to use transportation issues
to frighten the American people into abandoning nuclear energy. That
would be a colossal mistake for our nation and would seriously
undermine national security.
The simple fact is that transportation of nuclear materials is a
challenging and risky operation, but it is also an operation that has
been extensively studied and engineered for success. In the United
States, as well as in other countries, the record for transporting
spent fuel is superb. Opponents need to remember that the shipping
casks for spent fuel are designed to withstand the most rigorous
conditions, and routes will be carefully chosen to further limit risks.
In the United States, since 1960, we have shipped spent fuel about
2700 times and it's traveled over 1.6 million miles. Sure, there have
been a few accidents. But no radiation has ever been released in any of
them.
The record at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project is also spectacular.
In their 3 years of operations, they have logged about 700 shipments
traveling over 1.5 million miles. And in Europe, over 70,000 metric
tons of spent fuel have been shipped, an amount roughly equal to the
total authorized limit for Yucca Mountain.

Furthermore, in any debate about transportation, the simple fact is
that route selection and detailed planning will begin at least 5 years
before the first shipment and that the total number of shipments in a
year will be around 175, a far cry from the 300 million annual
shipments of hazardous materials that are currently moving around the
country. There will be plenty of time to debate and optimize shipping
plans before any spent fuel moves.
In responding to the outstanding issues raised by the NRC, I'm sure
the Department will continue to analyze the mountain and improve their
modeling and simulation. That is certainly important research that I
fully support. But I want to note that other research is also vital.
I have spoken on many occasions with my concern that the Nation's
policy of simply treating spent fuel as ``waste'' deserves careful
debate. Spent fuel has immense residual energy content. I am not
convinced that we should be making a decision today that future
generations will have no interest in this superb energy source.
I have noted that alternative spent fuel management strategies should
be carefully studied and evaluated. Reprocessing and transmutation
could not only recover residual energy, but could also vastly reduce
the toxicity of the final waste products.
I am pleased that the Department plans for all spent fuel in Yucca
Mountain to be fully retrievable for at least 50 years. We may find
that these new approaches can even be applied to the spent fuel in
Yucca Mountain and they certainly will influence any additional
repositories that we may need.
In my view, the Nation is far better served by beginning to move
spent fuel into a single well-secured repository than to leave it
stored in temporary facilities at 131 sites in 39 States. I support the
joint resolution to override the veto of the Governor of Nevada and
continue evaluation of Yucca Mountain as our Nation's future
repository.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak regarding the
proposed national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. After
serious consideration of this issue over the last several years and
after carefully studying the track record of the nuclear industry in
the United States, I have concluded that I will not stand in the way of
sending this waste to a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. I also
understand the reservations expressed by many of my colleagues in this
Chamber, and I have certainly taken such considerations into account in
making my decision.
Utahns have a right to be skeptical about government promises with
regard to the handling of nuclear materials. In Utah, we have had more
than our share of victims from government activities relating to atomic
testing and the uranium industry. I have met with too many Utahns who
are suffering needlessly. These Utahns were my inspiration when I
passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act through Congress and
when I improved this legislation a few years ago. Over the years, the
act has provided compensation to thousands of downwinder victims.
One of the top considerations in my decision on this issue has been
the future of a proposal for a temporary storage site on the Skull
Valley Goshute Indian reservation in Utah. Skull Valley has been
targeted by a private consortium of nuclear electric generators as a
temporary site for nuclear waste en route to Yucca Mountain, NV. I have
concluded that if the plan to send high level nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain is not approved, Skull Valley will likely become the targeted
alternative for permanent storage even though it is a private project
only

[[Page S6467]]

being considered as a temporary facility.
I have many concerns regarding the proposed Skull Valley site. Chief
among these is that it would pose a serious threat to the nearby Utah
Test and Training Range, which is one of the most important bombing
ranges available to our military. The dangers involving live ordnance
or aviation accidents in the vicinity of the proposed above-ground
nuclear storage casks present an unacceptable risk. Secretary Abraham
of the Department of Energy has made it clear to me that the Department
will not reimburse the nuclear industry for storing nuclear waste at
Skull Valley. By not funding the Skull Valley site, the Department of
Energy provides a significant incentive for generators of high level
nuclear waste to find solutions to storage problems either on-site or
to send materials directly to the permanent site proposed at Yucca
Mountain.
Also a top concern for me and many Utahns has been the issue of the
safe and secure transportation of these materials through Utah as they
travel to Yucca Mountain, NV. As you may be aware, well over 80 percent
of the high level nuclear waste proposed to be stored in Yucca Mountain
is projected to travel through populated areas of Utah.
Only after receiving a firm commitment from Secretary Abraham that
the Department of Energy will work with the State of Utah to formulate
an enhanced and updated transportation plan do I feel confident in
casting this vote today. The plan will address operational procedures,
additional emergency first responder training, and coordination efforts
between State governments and the Department of Energy regarding the
safe transit of nuclear materials to Yucca Mountain. I would like to
make it clear that the Utah congressional delegation will closely
monitor the development of this updated transportation plan.
In closing, I want to underscore how difficult this decision has been
for me. I could never support any policy that would place Utahns at
risk, and I believe that my decision to support the Yucca Mountain
project is consistent with that. This decision has come down to my
commitment to fight against the ill-advised and under-equipped facility
proposed for Skull Valley, UT, and a firm commitment from the
Department of Energy concerning the safe and secure transportation of
these materials. With these strong commitments from Secretary Abraham,
I have decided that I should not stand in the way of sending this waste
to its permanent resting place in Yucca Mountain.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on designating
Yucca Mountain as the Nation's waste repository in the State of Nevada.
But before I start, I would like to get a few things clear. First, I
don't oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is an efficient and clean way
to generate electricity. The obvious downside to nuclear power is that
its waste is harmful to people. Yet, several States benefit from the
relative clean power that nuclear plants generate. Clean air, clean
water, and efficient power are significant benefits that some enjoy.
My opposition to designating Yucca Mountain is deeply rooted in my
strongly held belief in States' rights. I believe that States should
determine their own destiny--when States elect or choose to benefit
from a program or policy, then those States should correspondingly
assume the costs, costs that might not only be monetary.
My State of Colorado did not choose to build nuclear power plants. My
State of Colorado did not choose to enjoy the benefits that nuclear
power offers. Correspondingly, my State of Colorado never chose to
assume the responsibility of storing nuclear waste and, therefore, we
do not.
Some States favor storing nuclear waste and enjoy the economic
benefits of doing so. My neighbor to the south, New Mexico, for
example, chose to store nuclear waste in Carlsbad. The WIPP facility
there is a major source of revenue for the community and the State.
Although it has some detractors, I think that it is widely regarded as
a big plus. The State of Nevada, however, unequivocally opposes storing
waste at Yucca Mountain. It objects for a variety of reasons. Whereas
the State of New Mexico considers storing nuclear waste good for
business, the State of Nevada believes that storing nuclear waste at
Yucca will kill business. Nevada's economy relies, perhaps more than
any other State in the Nation, on tourism.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to override a Governor's veto,
when the long-term effect has the potential to destroy that State's
economy. During hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on designating Yucca, I noted my moral opposition. Today, I
reiterate that argument.

I likened the issue to a homeowner who builds his big house on a
small lot, and then realizes that he failed to build a septic tank for
the house. Rather than change his design, the homeowner just puts the
septic tank on his neighbor's property. I don't want someone else's
septic tank on my property. The State of Colorado doesn't want a septic
tank. We shouldn't force Nevada to be a septic tank for other States.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the routing of nuclear waste
shipments going through Colorado toward Yucca. I realize that the
routes that have been referred to are not certainties, but they are
certain possibilities. After this vote, the Congress will have a very
limited voice in choosing routes. I share many of the same
transportation concerns some of my colleagues have expressed. I don't
want to restate all of their points. Rather, I just want to note that
if Yucca mountain moves forward, Colorado will likely be a major
transit route for nuclear waste with nearly 13,000 rail shipments over
38 years, one of the highest in the Nation.
And what is not transported by rail will be transported by truck in
I-70 and through Vail Pass, a difficult mountain road winding through
Colorado's Rocky Mountains. Trucks wreck all the time on I-70. I am
happy to know that we have not had any major nuclear waste accidents by
truck, but am troubled by the possibility, just the same.
A colleague made a logical argument about the benefits and risk. For
him, the benefits of designating Yucca mountain make the risks
tolerable. I am unable to make the determination. Because I don't know
what the transportation routes will be and my Governor does not have
authority to designate or oppose routes, I can't engage in a cost-
benefit analysis.
In the absence of state oversight authority to regulate, and without
sufficient information on route designations, the risks are too great
for this Senator to approve Yucca Mountain.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I represent a State with one active nuclear
reactor powerplant and a second decommissioned nuclear power plant,
both of which are storing nuclear waste far beyond their initial design
limits. I can assure you there is much concern within my State over
what the government plans to do with nuclear waste and a sense of
urgency to get something done. I cannot in good conscious however vote
to make Yucca Mountain the destination for all of our nuclear waste
when a number of studies urge caution and further study to make sure
that we are not making a mistake, a mistake that could plague the
people of Nevada and potentially more than 40 other States in which we
will transport this nuclear waste in the years to come.
In the late-1970s President Carter, himself a nuclear engineer,
initiated an Interagency Review Group, IRG, to solve once and for all
the high-level nuclear waste problem in the United States. The IRG
tasked the Department of Energy with finding the best sites in the
country for storing our nuclear waste. At the same time, the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, NRC, were tasked with developing criteria for the selection
of sites. Then, in 1982, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
NWPA, which included a commitment to identifying two sites. Between
1982 and today, however, the process was changed. In 1987, Congress
amended the NWPA by directing DOE to develop only one site, Yucca
Mountain. Yucca Mountain was selected as the only site for purely
political reasons.
Over the years, the EPA has lowered standards when they discovered
that Yucca Mountain could not meet the existing ones. They abandoned a
collective radiation dose limit when it was discovered that the Yucca
site could not meet it, and, just last year, the

[[Page S6468]]

EPA promulgated final standards for licensing Yucca Mountain that rely
on dilution of nuclear waste as opposed to containment. In other words,
we changed the standards so that we did not have to change the site.
Yucca Mountain was picked, in part, because it is an arid, unpopulated
area already owned by the federal government, which used it as a
nuclear test site from the 1950s to the early 1990s. The original
theory was that, if canisters deteriorated, there would be little water
in the dry ground to carry the radioactive waste to other areas. But
that theory has already been thrown as Chlorine-36, a radioactive
isotope created during nuclear weapons tests over the Pacific Ocean in
the 1950s, was recently discovered 1,000 feet below ground at Yucca
Mountain. In just 50 years, that material traveled in the atmosphere to
Nevada, was delivered as rain at Yucca Mountain and traveled at least
1,000 feet below the surface--the level where the nuclear waste would
be stored. Such rapid movement was completely unexpected and required a
revision of models of water flow in the area.
Because of this Chlorine-36, the DOE plans to bury the waste in
canisters made of Alloy 22--a new composite metal containing nickel,
chromium and molybdenum--and then lined on the inside with stainless
steel. Alloy 22 is resistant to corrosion from water, but it is a
manmade substance that has existed for only about 20 years. The DOE has
only about 2 years of data on the effects of corrosion on it. Using
such limited data, the government is predicting the life expectancy of
the canisters 10,000 years into the future. No other nation is planning
to use Alloy 22 to bury its nuclear waste, and the material does not
exist in nature, so there is no way of naturally predicting how strong
it will prove to be. Clearly, further study is needed before reliable
predictions can be made.
I am concerned that President Bush approved Yucca Mountain despite
the fact that the General Accounting Office back in December of last
year, identified more than 200 important scientific and technical
questions about Yucca Mountain that remain to be answered. This is
especially troubling because Presidential candidate Bush promised back
in 2000 that ``sound science, not politics, must prevail'' in
determining whether to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The GAO
report urged the administration to postpone a decision until these
questions could be answered. I am disappointed that the administration
has failed to listen to the GAO.
There are transportation issues as well. I am not entirely convinced
that we have a well-thought-out plan for moving all of this nuclear
waste from around the country. The safety record of nuclear waste
transportation should give us pause. Between 1964 and 1997, the DOE
made approximately 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel. During this
time, there were 47 safety incidents involving nuclear shipments,
including six accidents. Much is left to be decided on transportation
and I for one am reluctant to proceed until we have answers as to how
this material will be shipped, on what routes, by what means and near
what major cities. None of these questions have been answered, and I
believe we should know if we can move this radioactive waste safely
before we designate a national repository.
The routes for transporting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain have not
been finalized by DOE. The DOE is currently considering three modes of
transportation, rail, truck and barge, but the DOE has not finalized
the modes nor the routes. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
EIS, for the Yucca Mountain project, DOE proposed a set of truck, barge
and rail routes. These routes make use of major highways and pass
through several of the Nation's largest metropolitan areas. The EIS for
Massachusetts shows that if trucks are used to move the waste, 456
truck trips would originate in the Bay State and another 1,469 trips
would transit the state en route to Yucca Mountain. Under the rail
scenario, the EIS showed that 39 rail trips would originate in
Massachusetts and another 511 would pass through the state en route to
Yucca. In addition, the NRC is responsible for testing the containers
that the waste will be shipped in. Thus far, all of the NRC tests
relied exclusively on computer simulation to test the storage
containers against fire and water damage. I think we can all agree that
more testing is needed with actual storage containers to ensure the
safety of all Americans.
Because of this lack of testing and with real concern for their
cities, the Conference of Mayors recently passed a resolution calling
on the Federal Government to oppose the Yucca Mountain repository until
the serious safety concerns in the transport of nuclear waste were
answered. Some of these concerns include the lack of physical testing
of the transport casks and the lack of money and knowledge in our
cities needed to deal with an accident involving nuclear waste. I
believe we would be wise to listen to our mayors.
None of us here today want this waste to stay onsite forever, but we
need a safe and responsible solution for disposal of the waste we have
created. And we urgently need to develop a policy that protects the
health and safety of local communities and all Americans. There are too
many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of storing the
waste at Yucca Mountain and the means by which we transport that waste
there, and that is why I am voting no today.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I vote today against the motion to
proceed to the consideration of the Yucca Mountain resolution. I have
cast this vote for several reasons. First, on procedural grounds, I
agree with the majority leader that to consider the issue now would be
an unacceptable divergence from Senate practice and procedure. It is
the right of the majority leader to schedule the consideration of
legislation on the floor of the Senate, and for me to vote for this
motion would be to sanction what I view as an inappropriate procedure.
But the biggest problem is the substance of this plan. I don't
believe that the Yucca Mountain site is ready to be approved by the
Congress. There is an old saying: ``underpromise, overperform.''
Unfortunately, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan
overpromises and underperforms for the people of my State. I have
studied this issue carefully, mindful of how important nuclear power is
to Connecticut, and of how concerned Connecticut families are about the
health and safety effects of storing nuclear waste on site. They are
right to be concerned. But after many months of deliberation, I have
decided that the plans aren't ready. Voting to create a waste
repository at Yucca Mountain today would solve no problems and create a
few new ones for the people of my state. It is not wise policy.
I believe the most obvious indication of this fact is the Department
of Energy's plans to apply for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Even though the Nuclear Waste Policy Act instructs the
Energy Department to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 90 days after Congress acts, Secretary Abraham has stated
that his agency will not submit an application until December 2004 at
the earliest. Obviously, the Energy Department is not ready to make
their case for this site. Why should we be endorsing the project long
before the Department is ready?
From studying the plans for the site, I believe that the reason that
the Energy Department is not ready to submit its application is
because, simply, too many unanswered questions remain. In dealing with
nuclear waste, we should first do no harm.
It is too soon to say conclusively that the Yucca Mountain plans meet
that standard. Consider the storage problems. In a December 2001 report
to members of Congress, the General Accounting Office wrote of
``uncertainties'' relating to the ``longevity of [engineered] waste
containers,'' and noted that ``significant work is needed'' before the
safety of the containers can be substantiated. The GAO also felt that
more studies needed to be completed before the physical characteristics
of the site could be declared suitable for the project. Most notably,
the report stated the GAO's uncertainty on ``how the combination of
heat, water, and chemical processes caused by the presence of nuclear
waste . . . would affect the flow of water through the repository.''
Among the remaining physical ``uncertainties,'' the GAO prominently
listed: faulting and fracturing of the

[[Page S6469]]

repository rock; the flow of water through the repository rock; and the
stability of the repository rock under heated conditions and conditions
involving seismic events as main concerns.

The GAO's view of uncertainties was seconded by the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board--an independent review board that acts as a
check for the Energy Department's view of the science. In a January 24,
2002 letter to Congress, the Review Board offered criticisms of the DOE
study, finding that, ``as a whole . . . the technical basis for the
DOE's repository performance estimates is weak to moderate.''
But, the most important point for my home state of Connecticut is
that, even if Yucca Mountain worked perfectly, with none of the
potential problems that many experts have raised, it would not answer
our problem of nuclear waste storage. It gives the people of my State
the false hope of a solution to this serious problem. In fact, the plan
may well create new problems in many areas of the state that are now
free of nuclear waste problems.
It is not as if, if we were to approve this site, the tons of nuclear
waste in Connecticut would be instantly transported to Nevada. Rather,
it would take 40 years and thousands of shipments to transport that
waste across the country, and by the time Yucca was filled, we would
have generated just as much waste at each of Connecticut's nuclear
sites. So the opening of Yucca Mountain will not free us of the
terrorist threat at each of the sites. To the contrary, it will
disperse the waste even more than it is currently dispersed.
And the most dangerous waste of all--the ``hot'' waste that has just
been removed from the reactors--cannot be moved off of our sites in
Connecticut until it has cooled for at least 5 years. Thus, as long as
we are operating nuclear plants in Connecticut, we will have dangerous
nuclear waste at those plants. In other words, the current Yucca
storage plans do not resolve Connecticut storage issues.
Finally, I am concerned that the transportation of the waste would
bring new problems to regions of Connecticut that do not face them. The
Energy Department has formulated no logical and systematic plan
regarding the transportation of waste. To transport the approximately
40,000 tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, over 100,000 truck
shipments or 36,000 combined rail and truck shipments would be needed,
to be spread over the next 40 or so years. This would include waste
from other States coming across on Connecticut highways and railroads.
The attacks on September 11 have created major new questions about the
transport of this waste, which could have a major effect on my State
and which have not been addressed. Until some safe and proven plan to
transport this waste is offered, I am troubled by the danger on our
roads and rails.
We need to deal with this nuclear waste--but no one has demonstrated
yet that Yucca Mountain is the answer. With technology advancing every
day, perhaps it will be the answer tomorrow. Or perhaps in the future
we will find another, much better solution. Until then, the imperfect
status quo is better than a highly uncertain and incomplete plan such
as this one.
This proposal is simply not yet ready for our consideration.
Unfortunately, the Energy Department has stated that it will not
continue to consider the site if this vote does not go its way. I think
that is the wrong approach--the questions I have raised today may be
able to be answered satisfactorily with more planning and better
technology, and if they are, I would probably support the site. But
this proposal is not ready for prime-time, and I am concerned that it
will not be responsible to proceed to its consideration at this point.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are voting today on whether to move
forward on development of Yucca Mountain as a permanent disposal site
for our Nation's nuclear waste.
Nuclear power provides an emissions free energy source. My State of
Vermont, along with 39 other States, relies on nuclear power for a
large portion of its electricity generation. It is an important part of
our energy mix.
Nonetheless, we must be realistic in dealing with the downsides
associated with nuclear power. Over 30 years ago, as Vermont's Attorney
General, I was concerned about the impact of nuclear waste on our
environment and the health of Vermonters. As Attorney General, I fought
to improve the safety standards at Vermont Yankee by calling for the
use of new technology that dramatically reduced airborne radiation.
When the industry resisted, I required Vermont Yankee to enter into a
contract with the State to use the best available technology to control
radiation and to accept State monitoring, protecting the Connecticut
River and the people of Vermont. The Atomic Energy Commission later
accepted these technologies as their industry standard.
Throughout my time in Congress I have continued to work for a
comprehensive solution to our nuclear waste problem. Back in 1977, I
introduced a bill in the House calling for a comprehensive nuclear
waste disposal strategy. I maintained then, as I do now, that finding
an effective solution to the waste problem is critical to the future of
nuclear power in this country.
So I have been working on this problem for a long time. I have
supported the Yucca Mountain proposal in the past, in the belief that
it would resolve the problem, and contain both our past and future
nuclear waste.
However, the truth is that Yucca Mountain will not provide this
solution. It is now clear that Yucca Mountain will only take part of
the waste, leaving some, if not most, of the future waste that will be
produced sitting along the banks of rivers, beside both our small local
communities and our largest population centers. This is not adequate.
This is not acceptable.
Therefore, despite my past voting record on this issue, I will cast
my vote today against the sitting resolution for Yucca Mountain,
because it does not finish the job we must do. Unlike my previous
understanding, the Yucca site will not provide a sound, permanent and
comprehensive solution to the problem of our nuclear waste disposal.
All it does it provide a partial measure, one that can lull us into a
false sense of security that the issue is taken care of. It is not.
I understand that Yucca Mountain, if approved today as I assume it
will be, will take some of the waste, both from my State and others.
That is of course helpful, as far as it goes.
But Americans should not be misled into believing that the Yucca
Mountain site will solve America's waste problem. I would be derelict
in my duties were I not to dispel this motion. I do so with my vote
today in opposition to the Yucca Mountain proposal, under its current
limitations. I do so not because I don't recognize that Yucca has the
potential to provide some relief to storage concerns at Vermont Yankee
and other sites. I take this vote instead because we cannot allow it to
be viewed as the panacea to our nuclear waste storage problem.
We must continue to work with the nuclear industry and with the
administration to find a safe and comprehensive solution to this
extremely vexing problem. We cannot rest on our laurels for the next
10, 20 or 30 years, only to wake up to expanded nuclear waste piles
with nowhere to go.
I trust my vote today will help emphasize this continuing need, and
our continuing obligation.
I take this vote only after many long hours of carefully examining
the facts of this matter. The truth is, I am more concerned than ever
that we are just delaying the problem. Vermonters need to know that
under the Yucca ``solution'' high-level waste is still likely to be
stored forever on the banks of the Connecticut River. All Americans
need to know similar waste storage problems will still exist on our
Nation's waterways.
Over the years, I have consistently supported a central storage
solution for nuclear waste. I continue to believe that it is essential
that we find a permanent, central storage site if we are to continue to
produce nuclear power.
The current proposal before us is merely a partial, interim step, and
must be recognized as such. We must not just blindly continue to
produce nuclear power, without a comprehensive and safe solution to the
disposal of the waste we produce.
I urge my colleagues and this administration to not relax our
diligence in focusing on the next step, a real and

[[Page S6470]]

comprehensive solution to nuclear waste disposal.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am voting against this resolution. I
support the development of a long-term strategy of storing our Nation's
nuclear waste. However, a single storage repository is not the answer
to our nuclear waste problem.
I have three major concerns about the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository: first, the repository's inadequate storage capacity,
second, the environmental risks of storing nuclear waste at the site,
and third, the risks of transporting nuclear waste to the site.
Based on these factors, I believe it would be a mistake to bring all
of our Nation's nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Instead of a single
repository, it would be better to develop regional nuclear waste
permanent storage facilities which would increase overall storage
capacity and reduce risks associated with transporting waste great
distances.
Today nuclear waste is stored at 131 facilities in 39 States. These
facilities hold nearly 47,500 metric tons of nuclear waste. This amount
is growing rapidly. Within 40 years, it is estimated that our country
will have generated nearly 108,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.
The Yucca Mountain repository, as I understand it, is authorized to
hold only 70,000 metric tons. So at our current rate of nuclear waste
production, we will have generated this amount by the earliest
estimated date of the repository's opening in 2010. In fact, we may
generate the full 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste before the site
ever opens.
What is the point of creating a storage site that will be filled to
capacity before it even opens?
I am very concerned about the environmental risks surrounding the
site storage. DOE was supposed to recommend or reject the Yucca
Mountain repository with geologic considerations to be the primary
criteria. I find it disturbing that the suitability of the Yucca
Mountain repository has instead focused on container material.
These titanium waste containers are DOE's principal method of
providing safety and security of the nuclear waste and repository and
ensuring the protection of surrounding areas.
Yet how can we be so confident in our support of such containers when
we don't know about their longevity and durability?
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which was established by
Congress specifically to ensure that a repository adequately protects
the public health and the environment and it has voiced similar
concerns. Last year, the board termed the technical basis for DOE's
repository performance estimates as ``weak to moderate.''
As a result, the NWTRB has limited confidence in current performance
estimates generated by the DOE's performance assessment model. The
board has found that high temperatures in the DOE's repository design
increase uncertainties and decrease confidence in the performance of
these metal storage containers.
According to Dr. Jared Cohon, the chairman of the board, ``gaps in
data and basic understanding cause important uncertainties in the
concepts and assumptions on which the DOE's performance estimates are
now based.''
The half-life of these titanium storage containers is still unknown.
Scientists have found that the first container failures could occur
after 10,000 years, although one board member said it was ``hopeless''
to know how long the container would last, given just a few years of
research. Perhaps failure could occur much sooner.

In comparison, Uranium 235, the basic fuel used by nuclear reactors,
has a half-life of 704 million years.
It would be simply irresponsible for us to bury such hazardous
nuclear waste when we don't have a good idea about how long the
containers could hold up.
One of the most significant problems found at the site is the amount
of subsurface water present under Yucca Mountain. Water promotes
corrosion and movement of radioactive material and its presence in a
repository is a serious drawback. As the titanium casks erode over
time, we could face a potential disaster as this water becomes
contaminated and flows into the water table.
California counties have expressed their rightful concerns of
subsurface water at Yucca Mountain surfacing at populated areas
downstream of the site.
For instance, Inyo County in California, with a population of 17,945,
lies downstream of the proposed repository. Contaminated water could
very easily spread from the repository directly into their towns and
homes.
Death Valley, one of our Nation's ecological and environmental
treasures, is also only about 20 miles from the repository. Water
contaminated with nuclear waste could destroy one of the jewels of our
National Park System.
DOE refutes the idea of possible harm of water contamination based on
the titanium casks the Department has proposed to store the nuclear
waste.
Yet in March of 2001, the NWTRB wrote to DOE expressing its concern
that important water flow processes around Yucca Mountain remain poorly
understood and should be further studied.
The board has criticized the lack of critical corrosion data on the
titanium casks in the DOE's basic design concept. According to the
board, ``We are betting the performance of the systems on the long term
performance of these effectively new materials.''
The fact is we simply do not know enough about the durability of
these containers and how they will hold up under intense natural
conditions for thousands of years.
If we are so confident of the safety and durability of these titanium
storage casks, why not use them to store nuclear waste at or near
existing reactor sites and thereby eliminate the risk of transporting
these hazardous materials across the country?
The most immediate question that need to be answered, however, is,
how will we transport all of our nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain? While
some argue that the repository will increase national security by
decreasing the number of storage sites, the transportation of nuclear
waste to the site would actually create thousands of moving targets.
In order to move the Nation's nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain
repository, DOE would have to transport thousands of metric tons of
nuclear waste across the country and those shipments would take decades
just to move the waste that has already been generated.
Keep in mind that nuclear power provides a quarter of our Nation's
energy needs and we generate hundreds of spent nuclear fuel rods each
day and nearly 2,200 metric tons of nuclear waste each year.
If we had a way to magically move all of the nuclear waste to Yucca
Mountain, it might be safer to have a single repository. However, this
is not the case and the transportation of nuclear waste poses
unnecessary risks for accidents and attacks.
According to DOE, it would take an estimated 24 years for the full
70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste to be transported to Yucca
Mountain.
DOE has not yet determined exactly how this nuclear waste would be
transported. The Department estimates that it would take 53,000 trips
by truck over the proposed 24-year time period. If the nuclear waste
traveled by train, that scenario would involve an estimated 10,700 rail
shipments.

The site is scheduled to open in 2010 according to DOE's earliest
predictions and at the end of all shipments in 2034, there would still
be: nearly 42,000 metric tons of commercial nuclear waste stored in 63
nuclear power plant sites in 31 States; and about 7,000 metric tons of
DOE generated waste stored in 4 states.
This is why I believe a single repository is not capable of meeting
our long-term nuclear waste storage needs.
Such shipments present unnecessary risks in transporting numerous
shipments of hazardous materials from New England to Nevada.
As a result of this plan, significant amounts of nuclear waste will
undoubtedly move through or near populated urban areas, potentially
jeopardizing the safety of millions of Americans.
And commercial spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors would
comprise about 90 percent of the waste shipped to the repository. DOE
has acknowledged that this waste is ``usually intensely radioactive.''
According to DOE's Final Environmental Impact Statement, (FEIS)

[[Page S6471]]

more than 123 million people currently live in 703 counties traversed
by DOE's proposed highway routes and 106 million live in counties along
DOE's proposed rail routes.
Using potential truck and rail transportation routes identified by
DOE, the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental research
organization, estimated that waste shipments to the Yucca Mountain
repository could pass within a mile or less of 14,510 schools, 933
hospitals and the homes of 38.5 million people.
When the distance from routes is expanded to 5 miles, waste shipments
could pass 36,228 schools, 1,831 hospitals and the homes of 109 million
people.
Preliminary routes in Southern California slate waste from the Diablo
Canyon powerplant to be shipped about 200 miles on a barge to Port
Hueneme in suburban Ventura County just north of Los Angeles, which is
one of California's five busiest ports and the nation's biggest export
site for citrus.
These shipments pose potential threats to some of the most densely
populated areas in the U.S.
Additionally, routine radiation from shipping casks poses a
significant health threat to workers handling such shipments.
In the most extreme example, motor carrier safety inspectors could
receive cumulative doses large enough to increase their risk of cancer
death by 10 percent or more and their risk of other serious health
effects by 40 percent or more.
According to the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, public
perception of transportation risks could also result in economic costs
to those communities along shipping routes. Even without an accident or
incident, property values near these routes could decline by 3 percent
or more. In the event of an accident, residential property values along
shipping routes could decline between 8 percent and 34 percent,
depending on the severity of the accident.
DOE takes great pride in its record of safe transportation of
hazardous materials for over more than 30 years. During that time,
there have been only eight accidents and none of them resulted in the
harmful release of radioactive material.
However, during that time period, we were moving fewer than 100
shipments per year.
Over the next 24 years, there would be an estimated 2,200 shipments
per year heading to the Yucca Mountain repository alone. There would
also be more than 10,700 cross-country shipments occurring at an
average of 450 per year.
This enormous increase in shipments would greatly increase potential
accidents.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
457,000 large trucks were involved in traffic crashes in the year 2000
alone.
According to the FEIS, a very severe highway or rail accident could
release radioactive materials from a shipping container, resulting in
radiation exposures to members of the public and latent cancer
fatalities among the exposed population.
The July 2001 Baltimore rail tunnel fire has been cited as an example
of the dangers of shipping nuclear waste by train.
The fire burned for 3 days with temperatures as high as 1500 degrees
Fahrenheit. A single rail cask in such an accident could have released
enough radioactive material to contaminate an area of 32 square miles.
In addition to the harm inflicting surrounding populations, the FEIS
estimates the clean-up costs of such an accident could potentially
reach $10 billion.
Failure to clean up the contamination of such an accident could cause
4,000 to 28,000 cancer deaths over the next 50 years. Between 200 and
1,400 latent cancer fatalities would be expected from exposures during
the first year.
A successful terrorist attack using high energy explosives could
result in similar destruction and damage.
The FEIS concedes that a high-energy explosive device could rupture
the wall of a truck cask, leading to the dispersal of contaminants into
the environment. A single blast resulting in 90 percent penetration of
a truck cask could lead to 300 to 1,800 cancer fatalities. Full
perforation of a cask could cause 3,000 to 18,000 cancer fatalities.
Cleanup and recovery costs of such an incident would exceed $10
billion.
These threats should be taken very seriously and this assessment
furthers my belief that the long and complex transportation of nuclear
waste to a single site is a threat to our national security.
Based on these concerns, I do not believe that Yucca Mountain is the
answer to our current nuclear waste security nor our long term nuclear
waste storage problem.
According to Dr. Victor Gilinsky, a former Commissioner of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Yucca Mountain is not needed to
continue, or even expand, nuclear power use. There is ample opportunity
to expand existing, NRC-approved, on-site storage. As he testified
before the Senate Energy Committee:

the important thing now is to recognize that there is no
immediate crisis, that there is time to do this and to do a
good job and responsible job in terms of safety and security,
and to do it at a much lower cost to taxpayers than Yucca
Mountain represents.

I believe a regional system will provide us with both immediate and
long-term results. Immediate in the sense that we can explore expanding
storage at current NRC-approved sites. Long-term in the sense that it
will produce a system of regional permanent storage sites that will
meet our long-term nuclear waste storage needs.
I cannot support a site that does not have the capacity to meet our
Nation's long-term nuclear waste storage needs and poses serious risks
to our environment and national security. A system of regional storage
repositories could eliminate these risks and provide the adequate and
safe permanent storage of nuclear waste that our country needs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to House Joint
Resolution 87, the Yucca Mountain resolution, to approve the
development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982.
Since the advent of nuclear power nearly 50 years ago, we have been
concerned about the problem of waste generated by the production of
electricity. Today we are considering a decisive step towards a
solution to the dilemma of high-level nuclear waste as mandated by the
act. But the path forward is not risk-free.
There are problems associated with the siting. The General Accounting
Office has raised serious questions regarding the seismology, stability
of the repository, and long-term effects of heat, water and chemical
processes in and around the waste containers.
I am concerned about dangers posed by transporting thousands of tons,
and thousands of shipments, of high-level nuclear waste through 43
States. Each truck could potentially carry more long-lived
radioactivity than released at Hiroshima. I am sympathetic to those
States that face the risk of transportation-related accidents or
terrorist attacks. Because of our experience in the Pacific with
nuclear testing and resulting exposure to radioactivity, I urge caution
when dealing with long-lived radioactive material.
We have similar transport problems on the world's sea lanes. Last
week, Japan returned a shipment of mixed plutonium-uranium oxide fuel,
MOX, to the United Kingdom because it was sent to Japan with falsified
safety data and without proper safety checks. The safety and security
of nuclear waste, whether transported on the highways or the high seas,
should be of great concern to Americans. During my tenure in the
Senate, I have closely monitored the safety and security of shipments
of MOX from Europe to Japan for nuclear power purposes. On numerous
occasions I have voiced concerns with transportation plans and
associated security measures for the shipments of nuclear material in
the Pacific. Recent warnings and alarm over the threat of procurement
and use of nuclear materials for crude explosive devices known as
``dirty bombs'' heightens the need to be vigilant and careful in the
transport of nuclear material.
I am not convinced that the plan proposed by the administration has
addressed all of these risks. Clearly, we can't walk away from the
nuclear waste dilemma, and the nation must address this intractable
problem. We need a scientific rather than a political

[[Page S6472]]

solution. In a new approach, Congress should not pre-select a site but
provide a process that leads to a scientifically sound solution. I will
oppose the motion to proceed, as I am not convinced that this is the
best path forward.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the advent of nuclear power more than 50
years ago brought with it both great promise and great responsibility.
Our ability to harness the power of the atom has paid substantial
dividends for our society, but it has also left us with the formidable
challenge of safely storing the byproducts of nuclear power generation.
This is a challenge our Nation must meet so that future generations are
not endangered by today's nuclear waste.
Presently, all of the spent fuel from nuclear power plants and
research reactors throughout the country remains on-site at each
reactor. None of these facilities was designed to safely store that
waste on a permanent basis, and leaving spent fuel in temporary storage
around the Nation poses both a security threat and an environmental
hazard. In Illinois, nearly half of our electricity is generated from
nuclear power. Our State contains seven nuclear powerplants, two
nuclear research reactors, and more commercial nuclear waste than any
other State.
We need to find a safe and permanent way to store this material, and
such a storage site has been proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. I
have been to Yucca Mountain, which is located 90 miles from Las Vegas
on Federal land at the remote Nevada nuclear test site. The waste would
be stored more than 600 feet underground but more than 500 feet above
the water table, sealed in steel containers placed under a titanium
shield. A security force at the Nevada test site is in place to protect
the area, and the airspace around Yucca Mountain is already restricted.
When this issue has come before Congress in the past, I have opposed
efforts to move waste to a temporary facility at Yucca Mountain before
there was a scientific determination of whether waste could be safely
stored there on a permanent basis. I had no interest in moving this
waste to a temporary place, only to move it again when a permanent
repository is finally determined. I also opposed earlier measures that
would have mandated dangerously low standards for environmental
protection at the site.
Recently, however, I have been encouraged by the fact that the
Environmental Protection Agency has established radiation and
groundwater contamination standards for the Yucca Mountain storage
site. These standards were derived from recommendations by experts at
the National Academy of Sciences and were developed after extensive
public comment and scientific analysis. All of these standards greatly
exceed the standards debated by Congress in the two previous bills I
opposed. Under three bills Congress considered in the past on this
issue, the EPA would have been required to issue a single standard
limiting the lifetime risk of premature cancer death to 1 in 1,000, or
.001. The current EPA standard assumes a risk of 8.5 in 1,000,000, or
.0000085. Furthermore, these bills would have prohibited a standard for
groundwater, which EPA has now put in place. If the Department of
Energy is able to move forward with a licensing application for Yucca
Mountain, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be charged with making
sure that the Department of Energy proves it can meet the EPA's
standards. If it cannot prove this, the Yucca Mountain project cannot
move forward.
No site will ever be perfect for the storage of high-level nuclear
waste, but I believe the studies which have already been conducted and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review still to come provide
sufficient assurances that Yucca Mountain is the most appropriate site
available and should be used as the permanent national nuclear waste
repository.
I am still concerned, however, with the movement of thousands of tons
of nuclear waste across the country to Nevada. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy, Illinois would rank seventh in truck shipments in
what is called the ``mostly truck scenario.'' The same Energy
Department analysis concludes that Illinois would rank sixth in rail
shipments in the ``mostly rail scenario.'' Although waste has been
shipped through Illinois and other states in the past, approving Yucca
Mountain would initiate the largest waste shipping campaign in the
history of our country, both in terms of the number of shipments and
the amount of miles traveled for high level nuclear waste.
Unless we scrutinize safety factors and security risks, the large-
scale transportation of radioactive materials has the potential to
cause a host of serious challenges to cities and communities along
shipping routes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has expressed concerns
about the transportation plan, and I am submitting for the Record a
letter sent to President Bush on this matter, signed by Mayor Richard
M. Daley of Chicago and 17 other mayors. This issue is all the more
important in light of the terrorist threats we are likely to face in
the years ahead.
Illinois is home to one of the busiest transportation corridors in
the Nation, putting our State squarely at the intersection of the
nuclear crossroads. With the safety of Illinoisans at stake, finding
the safest way to move nuclear waste to a location where it poses the
least risk is imperative.
That is why I am introducing legislation in the Senate that would
direct the Federal Government to develop a comprehensive safety program
for nuclear waste transportation. This legislation would require the
waste containment casks to be tested to ensure they could withstand
intense fires, high-speed collisions and other threats that may occur
during transport. My bill also would require States to be consulted on
the selection of transportation routes and would require a 2-week
advance notification of waste shipments. I also would ban inland
waterway shipments of nuclear waste, require dedicated trains and
establish a minimum number of trained escorts to accompany each nuclear
waste convoy. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues who
share my interest in this legislation.
Congress should move forward with making Yucca Mountain the central
repository for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is, I am convinced, the
best solution to a complicated problem we have debated for decades. But
before shipments to Yucca Mountain begin, we need to establish a
transportation plan to ensure the safety and security of the
communities that lie in the path of those shipments, and we must begin
that work today.
I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors,

February 23, 2002.
Hon. George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Your approval of Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as a nuclear waste repository was a historic moment in
the history of the project. Quite literally, it is the
culmination of over 50 years of scientific research and
analysis. Since the Atomic Energy Act was passed in 1954, the
federal government has been searching for methods to dispose
of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
As a single largest federal government project in the
history of the United States, we acknowledge that the Yucca
Mountain project has detractors and supporters. Regardless of
the final repository location, we have serious concerns about
the transportation of spent nuclear fuel from reactors all
over the country to Yucca Mountain or any other repository.
So far, the preliminary estimates that have been released
call for up to 10 shipments of nuclear fuel each day for
close to 40 years. These shipments will travel through
America's cities past our schools, homes and places of
business.
In 1996, The United States Conference of Mayors adopted
policy on the transportation of radioactive waste that calls
for the federal government to fund training and equipment
that will be needed by local emergency response personnel
along transportation routes, to upgrade medical facilities
which would treat victims of transportation accidents, and to
upgrade highway and railroad or highway bypasses to ensure
safe transportation corridors. It also calls on the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to certify shipping transportation
containers after a public process that includes both physical
testing and computer modeling to ensure that the containers
can withstand severe accidents.
As mayors, we are concerned that the Department of Energy
(DOE) has not yet fully researched the methods for the
transportation of nuclear waste. A recent incident that
illustrates our concern is the 2001 Baltimore Tunnel fire.
Five days passed before fire fighters could gain access to
the blaze

[[Page S6473]]

and control the flames. Several studies have been done to
determine the environmental impact if that train had been
carrying spent nuclear fuel--and the results have been
disturbing.
Given the long-term nature of the Yucca project, it seems
only natural that the DOE would include transportation
analysis and an environmental impact study in its final
report. We respectfully request that the Office of the
President of the United States initiate one.
As the mayors of potentially affected cities, we urge you
to continue your dedication to public safety and homeland
security by supporting a thorough study on nuclear waste
transportation to the final repository.
We look forward to working with you on this very important
issue.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 18 mayors.)

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 34, a
joint resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, NV, for the
development of a repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level radioactive waste, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982.
As we are aware, under current law, Energy Secretary Abraham
recommended the Yucca Mountain geologic site as the repository for the
Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to the
President on February 14, 2002, and the President then recommended the
site to Congress the next day. Under law, on April 8, Nevada Governor
Guinn exercised his right to veto the Yucca Mountain site. This veto
will block further development of the site unless the Congress acts by
passing an approval resolution that is signed by the President by July
27.
In 1982, legislation was crafted in response to the need to dispose
of the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
that has been collecting since the growth of the nuclear power industry
started in the 1950s. The waste is now being stored in various ways in
131 locations across the country.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the NWPA, called for disposal
of this spent nuclear fuel in a repository in a deep geologic formation
that would not be disturbed for thousands of years. An office was
established in the Department of Energy to develop such a storage
repository, the costs of which would be covered by a fee on nuclear-
generated electricity and paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
My experience with the storage of the Nation's high-level nuclear
waste covers the entire 20 year lifetime of the NWPA. In the 99th
Congress, I introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 4664, with 23 other
Representatives to amend the NWPA. The bill called for the disposal of
high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel in a single
national repository. At that time, the NWPA called for two
repositories, one in the East and one in the West. I was also a
cosponsor of H.R. 4668, the Broyhill bill that removed the requirement
of a second repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel.
Our successes came in the next Congress, the 100th Congress, when
language I developed with then Representative Mo Udall was ultimately
included in the fiscal year 1988 Concurrent Budget Resolution that went
on to be signed into law as Public Law 100-203. The language called for
the establishment of one national repository. Language was also added
at that time that established Yucca Mountain as the only site to be
considered for the repository.
Through all of those years, and especially since 9/11, I have
continued to believe that the Nation's spent nuclear fuel could be more
safely stored at one secure federally guarded facility than at
temporary storage facilities all around the country. It would also be
less expensive to State governments, which have already taken on the
responsibility of dealing with the storage of low-level radioactive
waste within their borders.
I do not believe that leaving the spent fuel at commercial and DOE
sites for 10,000 years while having each site take the necessary
security precautions and storage upgrades is the best approach,
especially as the DOE itself has predicted that leaving the spent fuel
stored on all of the numerous sites throughout the country would result
in a radioactive material release, contaminating soil, surface water,
and groundwater.
In Maine, we have a nuclear plant being decommissioned--Maine
Yankee--that has been waiting for the Federal Government to take the
waste that it should have taken by law by 1998, but has still failed to
do so since no facility is ready to store the waste. In fact, Maine
Yankee is seeking $120 million through a lawsuit against DOE because
the Federal Government has not lived up to their part of the bargain.

The nuclear power plant stopped operating in 1997, but 1,434 spent
fuel assemblies still sit at the site waiting for a permanent Federal
solution. The company has now spent about $60 million to build a dry
cask storage facility and will spend at least $4 million per year to
operate it. This is not a unique case as there are a total of 26 power
plants no longer in operation that also have waste waiting to be
shipped. By 2006, 60 reactors will run out of original storage space,
with 78 running out by 2010.
Even after we pass this resolution and the President signs it, the
repository will still need to meet the strict requirements of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be licensed, and if the Yucca Mountain
site receives approval, it will not even be ready to accept spent fuel
before 2010 at the earliest. We simply cannot wait any longer to move
this issue forward.
I understand that concerns have been raised about the transportation
of the spent fuel--and these should be raised and the public should be
assured that security plans are in place for safe transportation. We
do, however, have a decade to assure that the waste will be safely and
securely shipped to the Yucca Mountain site from all parts of the
country. Indeed, history tells us that past shipments have been
carefully managed. The nuclear industry has completed 3,000 shipments
of spent fuel over 1.7 million miles by highways and railroads since
1964. Eight accidents have occurred, four of which had fuel in the
shipping containers, but no radiation was released. In the next decade,
we can expect even greater safety of shipments through improved
technology.
I was pleased to support Senator Carnahan's amendment to the recently
passed Senate energy bill that calls for a National Academy of Sciences
study on how DOE chooses spent nuclear fuel transportation routes, and
to do risk assessments of all of the potential routes. This should
clarify the transportation issue even more for the public and I urge
the conferees to keep this provision in the conference report.
The Federal Government has already spent $7 billion on the Yucca
Mountain site, and will ultimately spend about $50 billion more up to
the time when the site is expected to reach capacity and is closed in
2019. We must move forward responsibly to once and for all safely and
securely store the Nation's highly radioactive spent fuel and nuclear
waste at a single national location or, as the DOE has projected, the
cost will climb to the trillions of dollars. We can neither afford this
or afford to wait any longer.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1982, Congress required the Federal
Government to find a permanent repository for the disposal of spent
nuclear fuel. Now, 20 years later, we are finally taking the necessary
action to move ahead with this plan.
Yucca Mountain was recently designated as a suitable site for
development as the Nation's permanent repository, with over 24 years of
Federal research and scientific evaluation. The Secretary of Energy,
after thoroughly examining the relevant scientific and technical
materials, concluded that the site is scientifically and technically
suitable for construction of a repository. Now, it is up to Congress to
ensure that we provide a safe, permanent storage facility.
In this time of heightened terrorist threats, it is absolutely
necessary that the Government provide safe and secure permanent storage
for our spent nuclear fuel. Currently, spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste is stored at 131 sites in 39 States.
We can no longer afford to continue storing nuclear waste in
temporary sites that are too often located near densely populated areas
and water supplies. It seems only logical to want to safeguard public
health and safety by storing nuclear waste at a site that

[[Page S6474]]

would be highly guarded against any terrorist activity.
Even in my home State of Iowa, spent nuclear fuel from the Duane
Arnold plant is stored just outside of Cedar Rapids near the town of
Palo. Like too many other facilities in the United States, the plant is
being forced to construct temporary storage because of the Federal
Government's lack of action on a permanent facility.
And, just 10 miles from the Iowa border, at a plant that ceased
operation in 1987, sits 42 tons of nuclear waste in a waterpool that is
designed for temporary storage during operation, not permanent storage.
It's for these reasons that it is crucial the Senate move forward in
designating Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage facility. Storing
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would protect public safety, health and
the Nation's security.
Opponents continue to raise questions concerning the safety of the
transportation of this material to Nevada. For over 30 years, there
have been 2,700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel without a single
release of radioactive material harmful to the public or the
environment. It is important to remember that because spent fuel is
stored at over 100 temporary sites across the Nation, shipments of
spent fuel will cross the country whether or not Yucca Mountain is
approved.
Secretary Abraham has assured that the Department of Energy will
develop a transportation plan and work with State and tribal
governments regarding shipments to Yucca Mountain. Iowa's Governor, Tom
Vilsack, has also shared with me his support for designating Yucca
Mountain, based on the outstanding record of safely transporting
nuclear material. Given Iowa's geographic position across major
transportation routes, Governor Vilsack relayed that Iowa has
consistently met its responsibilities in this regard.
Lastly, those who oppose the transportation of the waste across the
country because it could be a terrorist target have clearly disregarded
the fact that spent fuel in secure transit to a permanent repository is
far less of a target than the spent fuel scattered across the country
at over 100 temporary, stationary sites.
With over 2,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel in Iowa or on it is
borders, it's imperative that the Senate take the necessary action
today to finally begin the process of developing a permanent
repository. To protect our national security, enhance our energy
security, and ensure the safety of the public, we must support this
resolution and move ahead on this project.
I request that a copy of Governor Vilsack's letter to me dated May 8,
2002, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

State of Iowa,

Office of the Governor,

Des Moines, May 8, 2002.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
I am writing to encourage your support for the recent
decision to go forward with development of Yucca Mountain,
Nevada as a permanent repository for our nation's used
commercial nuclear fuel and defense nuclear fuel and defense
nuclear waste. The State of Nevada has exercised its right to
object to the decision. As a result, it is now your
responsibility, as a member of Congress, to evaluate,
considering the effects on national interest, the decision
and affirm its wisdom.
In 1982 Congress established our nation's policy on
managing used commercial nuclear fuel and defense waste,
i.e., interim storage by commercial reactor operators at
their sites and permanent storage at one or more national,
geologic repositories by the Federal government. Further,
Congress provided for the collection of a fee, levied on
customers of electricity generated by nuclear power plants,
to be paid into the Federal Treasury and appropriated by
Congress for the study and development of a permanent
repository. In 1987, Congress, acting to focus the U.S.
Department of Energy's efforts, instructed the DOE to
exclusively study the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The DOE acting in accordance with Congress' instructions,
studied the Yucca Mountain site in extensive detail. This
study validated the scientific wisdom that led to focusing on
the Yucca Mountain site in 1987. We should now move on to the
next phase of activities and begin the processes of design,
licensing, construction and operation of a permanent
repository. This is with the full understanding that the
licensing and operation of Yucca Mountain still must
withstand the detailed scrutiny and additional questioning by
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission which is charged by
law to decide whether or not to issue a license to the DOE
before a single bundle of used nuclear fuel can move to Yucca
Mountain.
Used nuclear fuel is currently stored at commercial reactor
sites within and on the borders of the state of Iowa. While
this storage has been and continues to be accomplished
responsibly, these facilities were never intended as sites
for permanent storage and are operated on the presumption
that the Federal government will go forward with its
responsibility for providing a permanent repository. These
same reactor sites provide nearly 25% of Iowa's electric
energy.
Customers have paid into the federal fund for the purposes
of developing a repository. Study is but a single step
towards the final end of developing a useful facility. With
the completion of that study there is a ``light at the end of
the tunnel'' for those same customers who are bearing the
expense of the interim storage within or on the borders of
our state.
Congress, in 1982, when it enacted the policy of a national
repository, recognized that used nuclear fuel and defense
nuclear waste must be transported to that repository. History
provides us an outstanding record of transportation of
nuclear material. The state of Iowa, with its geographical
position across major transportation routes, has consistently
met its responsibilities in this regard. The same 1982 act
provides for federal support to states to insure that the
safety record of future transportation is equally good, if
not better.
The decision to move forward on Yucca Mountain and the
subsequent objection by Nevada have turned the issue back to
Congress to fulfill the national policy it established in
1982: providing a permanent Federal repository for used
nuclear fuel and defense nuclear waste. Science affirms the
wisdom of Congress' decision in 1987 to focus on Yucca
Mountain. Customers and our nuclear reactor operators have
provided money and interim storage while waiting for a
permanent repository.
It is now time for Congress to stand behind its original
decision and vote to move forward with Yucca Mountain. I ask
for your support on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Governor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the long struggle to find a permanent
repository for nuclear waste came one step closer to completion. The
Senate has decided to over rule Nevada's objection to storing nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain with a strong majority. This is a victory I
supported, but not one I can be happy about because it forced me to
vote against my leadership.
I supported moving the waste to Yucca Mountain for three main
reasons. First, the opening of Yucca Mountain means that Wisconsin will
have one less site storing nuclear waste as the Dairyland Power
Cooperative's decommissioned reactor will finally be able to get rid of
the waste stored at its defunct reactor. Second the site has been
proven safe after 20 years of study by the Department of Energy and the
National Academy of Sciences. Third, the electricity rate payers of
Wisconsin have paid more than $250 million over the years for this
site, and the Federal Government should fulfill its side of the bargain
by providing the repository it promised.
I still have concerns regarding transportation of the waste through
our population centers. This is a high stakes situation and every
effort needs to be made to choose the best routes, prepare the local
emergency response units, and continue to improve the casks in which
the waste will be moved. However, the industry's record of thousands of
shipments of nuclear waste around the country and around the world
without an accidental release of radiation leads me to believe that
these concerns will be adequately addressed.
I understand the concerns some of my colleagues have on the safety of
the Yucca Mountain site. What we are asking science to do by proving
that this site will be safe for tens of thousands of years is unheard
of, and may well be beyond our current capabilities. But this site, on
the Nevada Nuclear Test site, is certainly safer than leaving this
waste at 132 sites nationwide. Sites scattered around the country that
were never designed to be a permanent solution. This mountain has been
carefully studied and will continue to be closely monitored. We will
not walk away from Yucca Mountain but will watch it closely for
generations to come.
Burying our waste problems for future generations to deal with is not
something we should be proud of. I hope the Congress and the
administration will continue to fund nuclear research that will
investigate ways to

[[Page S6475]]

neutralize this waste. The repository at Yucca Mountain doesn't have to
be the last word on nuclear waste, and I hope we can do better in the
future.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the Yucca
Mountain resolution. Specifically, I want to review the issues that I
have considered in examining this legislation that have led me to vote
against the motion to proceed to this measure. In short, while I
believe that Yucca Mountain ultimately may be the appropriate place to
permanently store our country's nuclear waste, the Senate is
considering proceeding to this resolution today without having
addressed two key concerns: the Congress has not ensured that the Yucca
Mountain site is of sufficient size to house our country's nuclear
waste and the Congress does not yet know the Administration's plans for
ensuring that the transportation of waste to that site is safe and
secure. In addition, considering this premature resolution does nothing
to get the waste to Yucca Mountain more quickly because the Federal
Government must complete a number of remaining regulatory steps and
build the site.
Let me first express my grave concern about the process by which this
resolution has been brought to the floor. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982, amended in 1987, establishes a process for the Federal
Government to designate a site for a permanent repository for civilian
nuclear waste. In February 2002, this process culminated in a
Presidential recommendation for a repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. On
April 8, 2002, the State of Nevada exercised its authority under the
law to disapprove the site. As a result of this State disapproval, the
site may be approved only if a joint resolution of repository siting
approval, which we are now considering, becomes law.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also establishes an expedited procedure
for congressional consideration of the Yucca resolution. The purpose of
an expedited procedure is to facilitate the ability of Congress to
dispose of the matter specified in a timely and definitive way. To this
end, it establishes a means for Congress to take up, and complete
action on, the resolution of approval or disapproval within a limited
period of time. I am concerned that we are taking this action today and
we are still several years away from a final siting decision on Yucca.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still several years away from
issuing a construction license for Yucca, there is no transportation
plan, and the transportation containers to be used for waste shipments
to a permanent storage site have also not been approved by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Thus, while Yucca may be the right site, this is
the wrong time to have Congress ``approve'' the site while so many
regulatory questions are yet unanswered.
I have always felt that we should be certain that Yucca is the final
site before we proceed with final Congressional approval. For those of
us who represent states that are grappling with nuclear waste storage
questions, the short time frame mandated in law for the consideration
of this resolution has made it extremely difficult to analyze its full
effects on behalf of our constituents. The issues raised by this
resolution are serious policy issues. The Bush Administration knows the
resolution approval process is designated by law and has statutorily
defined deadlines for Congressional consideration. The Administration
should not have jumped the gun and set the clock in motion while there
is still a possibility that Yucca might not receive final siting
approval in the regulatory process.
During my time in the Senate, I have consistently said that I would
prefer that once nuclear waste leaves the State, it leaves permanently.
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 that sought to build large scale interim storage
facilities before the permanent storage site was ready and would have
jeopardized consideration of the permanent site. This resolution
commits the Federal Government, at least for the near term, to build
one such large scale permanent site.
I have heard concerns, however, from some constituents that this
resolution to build at Yucca makes Wisconsin more likely to be the next
permanent geologic storage site. I am concerned that Yucca, as
currently authorized, will not be of sufficient size to take all of
Wisconsin's waste. In previous Congresses, though I did not ultimately
support interim storage legislation for other reasons, I supported
provisions in interim storage bills to expand the size and capacity of
the Yucca site. At best, when Yucca is opened, it will leave nearly a
quarter of the waste currently in Wisconsin still sitting at our
plants. Moreover, if our nuclear plants in Southeast Wisconsin re-fuel
in the next few years, the Yucca site is not currently expected to take
any new waste.
Yucca's size is an important issue for Wisconsin because Congress is
required under law to approve the study and construction of a second
waste site, if one is needed. This resolution does nothing to change
that provision of law, and it remains unclear whether the Department of
Energy would look again at Wisconsin or the other sites considered in
the 1970s and 1980s. If it needed more storage capacity, the Department
of Energy could ask Congress to expand Yucca's size or recommend
another alternative geologic site. As a Wisconsin Senator, I have
serious concerns regarding the construction of a geologic storage site
in Wisconsin. In the past I have opposed legislation opening up the
possibility of a second site, and would express those concerns strongly
in any discussion of a second permanent location.
One of my main 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. While many have
suggested that waste has been shipped safely across the country during
the history of nuclear power in this country, there has never been a
coordinated efforts to ship waste to a centralized storage location.
The opening of Yucca Mountain would initiate an unprecedented shipping
program. I am concerned that the Final Environmental Impact Statement
for Yucca Mountain now includes barge transport on the Great Lakes and
extensive truck transport on highways as potential transportation
routes in addition to rail transport.
This resolution does not enhance our transportation safety, and our
current transportation regulatory program must be strengthened. In
fact, I believe that additional legislation may be needed to address a
number of transportation issues. I still feel that the Senate must act
in the near term to ensure that state and local governments have the
financial and equipment resources they need to respond to accidents and
protect public safety. Congress must insist on a comprehensive safety
program for nuclear waste transportation. We must require the waste
containment casks to be tested to ensure they could withstand intense
fires, high-speed collisions and other threats that may occur during
transport. It is also essential that states be consulted on the
selection of transportation routes and are given longer advance
notification of waste shipments. Other measures that need to be
addressed include banning both open water and inland waterway shipments
of nuclear waste, requiring dedicated means of shipping, and
establishing a minimum number of armed escorts to accompany each
nuclear waste convoy.
In conclusion, I cannot support this proceeding to this legislation
which purports to provide an interim fix to the country's nuclear waste
problem. I realize that this action is not the final say on Yucca
Mountain and that we have many more steps to go before Yucca is built.
But this site cannot serve its national purpose if we cannot get the
waste there safely or if it is too small to hold the waste. We should
have addressed these important considerations before proceeding to this
resolution.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am supporting the Yucca Mountain
Resolution today because we need to take the next step in resolving the
problem of nuclear waste in this country. It makes more sense to store
the Nation's high-level nuclear waste in a single place than it does to
leave it at 131 sites spread all around the country, many close to
significant population centers

[[Page S6476]]

and all located on bodies of water, including the Great Lakes and major
river systems. I do not feel that it is environmentally responsible to
allow spent nuclear fuel to sit indefinitely in temporary facilities on
the shores of the Great Lakes. We set up a procedure 20 years ago to
deal with this problem, and we should use it.
I have heard from citizens all over Michigan on both sides of this
issue. The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan House of
Representatives, and over 75 counties and communities have contacted me
to express their support for the effort to establish a permanent
repository at Yucca Mountain. This resolution will permit the
Department of Energy to submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission so that the Commission can determine whether established
regulatory requirements for the protection of public health, safety and
the environment have been satisfied. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
which was passed 20 years ago, did not leave it up to Congress to
decide whether or not Yucca Mountain is a suitable location for our
nuclear waste. Rather, it left this decision up to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. If this resolution is approved, a license
application will be submitted by the Department of Energy for Yucca
Mountain and over the next several years, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will go through all of the scientific and environmental data
and look at the design of the repository to make sure that it can meet
environmental and safety standards. This will be done by scientists and
technical experts.
I share the concerns of many people regarding the storage and
shipment of nuclear waste. Terrorism and transportation issues need to
be thoroughly addressed in the licensing process. Transportation plans
will be developed in a staged process over time and all plans will go
public with opportunities for input from the States and local
communities. The actual transportation routes are a long way from being
determined. Further, the Department of Energy assures us that there are
no plans to use barges to transport waste, and I will oppose any effort
to do so.
Since 1983, the people of Michigan have committed more than $400
million to the Nuclear Waste Fund for environmental protection that
they have not received. The Palisades nuclear power plant near South
Haven has a total of 432 spent fuel assemblies stored in 18 dry casks
located on site. An additional 649 spent fuel assemblies remain in the
spent fuel pool and will ultimately be transferred to dry casks. The
Big Rock Point nuclear plant near Charlevoix retains all of its spent
fuel in a pool inside the containment building. The plant is
permanently shut down and is in the process of being decommissioned.
Beginning early next year, the plant's 441 spent fuel bundles will be
loaded into 7 dry casks and stored on site. These casks are designed to
be an interim measure. They are not a permanent solution. Each nuclear
plant site in the U.S. has become a de facto spent fuel storage
facility. It would be more efficient and more secure to move all of the
spent fuel to one central facility where it can be safely stored
indefinitely. Further, in the case of Big Rock Point located near
Charlevoix, the plant and equipment will be completely removed from the
property within the next few years. All that will remain will be the
spent fuel, sitting on a large concrete pad about one-half mile from
the lake. Re-use of the property cannot be accommodated until the spent
fuel is removed.
Finally, a permanent repository is also important to support the
cleanup of contamination and waste generated by the cold war production
of nuclear weapons and materials for these weapons. Currently the
Department of Energy is treating high level waste materials,
stabilizing them and getting then into other safe configurations so
that the waste can ultimately be shipped to a permanent repository.
Moving the treated and stabilized waste is particularly key to the
cleanup of sites such as the Savannah River Site in South Carolina and
the Hanford Site in Richland, WA.
If this resolution does not become law, the only alternative for
getting waste out of these many temporary storage sites into a
permanent site will be terminated, which would move us in the wrong
direction. Leaving the nuclear waste at temporary sites and leaving
this decision to future generations is not the responsible thing to do
and is not a solution to this problem.
In supporting this resolution, I am supporting an open and rigorous
process for answering the concerns raised by so many. Only through this
process will we be able to protect the health of the people and the
environment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, since my first days in the U.S. Senate, I
have expressed strong concerns about nuclear power. The claims made in
the 1970s that nuclear power was going to bring our country cheap,
reliable and clean energy have turned out--as many warned at the time--
to be far from the truth. While electricity from nuclear power has been
reliable, it is neither cheap nor clean. The waste from these plants is
an enormous and undisputed economic liability for the Nation, and it is
far from environmentally clean.
After all these years of coasting on these false promises about
nuclear power, the bill has come due. Today we have 29 years of nuclear
waste in Vermont in the form of spent fuel in temporary storage on the
banks of the Connecticut River, and we cannot ignore that it needs to
be managed. Part of that management, especially since September 11 and
all of our heightened security since then, is to better secure on-site
waste until it can be transported to a safer location. And part of that
management is to create that safer location, officially designating
Yucca Mountain as the single, high-security site for the bulk of
nuclear waste that is now dispersed across our country.
While I know that some waste will always be located on-site at
operating nuclear plants, we must locate the bulk of the waste at a
single, secure site. Governor Dean and the Vermont Public Service
Department have consistently called on me to support the repository,
and today I again respect the wishes and long-term interests of my
State.
The vote in the Senate today was about establishing a single national
repository for tons of hazardous nuclear waste. I voted in favor. But
the question of how nuclear material is safely transported to the Yucca
Mountain site brings up a new set of difficult decisions that Congress
has yet to face. For the past several months, I have expressed my
strong concerns about prematurely transporting nuclear waste across the
Nation without a plan that addresses growing concerns of State
governments and local communities.
Especially in light of fears after September 11, nuclear waste
transportation concerns need to be discussed, debated and addressed by
our Nation's leaders. Congress has worked with the administration to
improve security at airports, border crossings and public buildings.
Yet throughout this Yucca Mountain debate, the Bush administration has
failed to fully inform Congress about security improvements envisioned
for shipping nuclear waste. It has failed to respond to repeated
questions from the American people and their local communities, and
that is unacceptable.
Vermonters, in the tradition that has so distinguished our State,
have actively studied the issues involved in the Yucca decision. Many
have shared their views and suggestions with me, on both sides of this
question, and I deeply appreciate their counsel. The approval of Yucca
as a repository is one issue that has taken years for Congress to
debate and address. This vote does not end the federal government's
obligation, by any means. I believe the administration must answer the
concerns raised by many Americans in many States about nuclear waste
transportation security before any material moves across the country
and through hundreds of large cities and small towns. Until then--and
until the Yucca Mountain site is truly operational--we must focus our
energy on ensuring that all nuclear waste is secured in the safest,
strongest on-site storage facilities possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. The
Senator from Idaho I think would require some 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from Idaho
spoke to me and indicated he would like to go now. Senator Ensign and I
have to be

[[Page S6477]]

here, and you have to be here. He doesn't have to be here all the time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure he is relieved to hear that, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you.
I thank my colleague for allowing me some additional time to visit
with you about what is probably one of the most important environmental
votes we will have this session in both the short-term and the long-
term perspective of good government policy dealing with the waste
stream of our nuclear era and hopefully dealing with it in a way that
allows us to move forward to new reactor design.
Ultimately, ensuring America it will continue to have a nuclear
industry that will provide the quality of electrical power on which our
country will so depend in an environmentally sound way is really an
underlying premise of this debate.
Before I discuss that a little more, I thought I would add to the
Record an interesting fact about precedent. I know my colleague from
Nevada is concerned about that as it relates to procedural activity on
the floor and what this motion to proceed may or may not mean.
As you know, the comment was made that if anyone other than a
majority leader were to make a motion to proceed, the Senate would be
seriously harmed. Let me give you a small excerpt of history.
On July 8, 1957, Senator Knowland of California, the Republican
minority leader of the Senate, rose and made the motion to proceed to
the consideration of H.R. 6127, which was being blocked by the majority
and the majority leader.
On July 16, 1957, after a week of debate on just that issue, the
Senate voted 71 to 18 to take up the legislation. In other words, they
voted on a motion to proceed proposed by the Republican minority
leader.
This legislation was the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The majority
leader was the then-Senator Lyndon Johnson. And he survived the assault
on his leadership very well. I think history will certainly attest to
that. The Senate itself has also survived very well.
But what we got through that fight was probably one of the most
critical pieces of legislation of a generation if not in the history of
this country; and that was the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
The procedures we are following and that set forth in the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act are a part of the Senate rules. By the term of the
statute, those procedures could be amended in the same fashion as any
other rule.
For 20 years, no one has complained about the procedures developed by
Senators Jackson, Johnston, Proxmire, and McClure, and others, and
eventually put forward by Congressman Joe Moakley, the chairman of the
House Committee on Rules.
No damage was done to the Senate in 1957, and it was that precedent
that found its way into the 1982 act. Failure to not proceed to and not
approve the resolution will not, obviously, in my opinion, advance the
issue at hand.
Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Record of July 8,
1957, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Excerpt from the Record of July 8, 1957]

Civil Rights

Mr. Knowland. Mr. President, the motion I am about to make
is to enable the Senate of the United States to perform its
legislative function to consider, debate, and vote upon such
amendments as may be offered and upon H.R. 6127, otherwise
known as the civil-rights bill.

* * * * *

I hope that within this week the Senate of the United
States will be allowed to vote on the motion to proceed to
the consideration of this important bill.
I feel certain that the Members of this body are both
reasonable and fair. If the opponents of the proposed
legislation will argue the merits of their case on the bill
itself and on the amendments when the bill is before the
Senate, they will find that we who favor the Senate's
functioning as a legislative body will not be unfair in our
judgments or unreasonable in our actions.
The mere fact that a majority may favor bringing this bill
up for consideration will not cause us to depart from a
procedure of parliamentary conduct that we would consider
fair and equitable if applied to us if we were in the
minority on this or any similar measure.
Again I appeal to my colleagues to permit the Senate as a
part of a coordinate branch of the Government of the United
States, to function under section 1, article I of the
Constitution, which reads as follows:
``All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.''
Mr. President, I move that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 485, H.R. 6127.
The President pro tempore. The bill will be stated by title
for the information of the Senate.
The Chief Clerk. A bill to provide means of further
securing and protecting the civil rights of persons within
the jurisdiction of the United States.
The President pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to
the motion of the Senator from California.
Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, what the Senator from
California has moved is merely that the Senate proceed to
consider the civil rights bill. He is not, at this time,
moving its passage. He is simply trying to bring the issue up
before the Senate, so that we may then have the chance to
discuss and to vote on it.
If the motion of the Senator from California prevails,
then, and only then, will it be germane for us to debate the
merits of the bill itself and to consider such amendments as
may be proposed. But for the present, all that is before us
is that we take a prior step and clear the decks so that we
can thereafter consider the all-important question of civil
rights.
This very simple parliamentary fact creates two guides for
action. First, that to filibuster against such a preliminary
step as deciding that we will later consider the bill would
be a purely negative and obstructive act. The second
consequence is equally clear. Until this motion is adopted,
it is inappropriate and premature to discuss at any length
either the merits of the bill or to consider any amendments
thereto. All this will properly come later. But for the
moment, all we are contending for is the right of the Senate
to take the earlier step, which is logically prior to the
discussion of amendments.
Let this immediate issue be crystal clear, and let it be
not confused by a deluge of words and a multitude of false
leads. It should not need any argument on our part.
Since the motives of those who are supporting this proposed
legislation have, however, been called into question, it may
be proper if we briefly restate our purpose. What we are
trying to do is to make effective in actual life the
constitutional rights of all citizens--regardless of race and
color--primarily the right to vote. As we all know, this
right is guaranteed by the 15th amendment in the following
words:
``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.
``The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article
by appropriate legislation.''
Not only does Congress have the power, but it also has the
duty to protect this right to vote against interference by
State officials under not only the 15th but also the ``equal
protection of the laws'' clause of the 14th amendment.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held (U.S. v. Classic
(313 U.S. 299)) that this right to vote in Federal elections
is also guaranteed by article I, section 2 of the
Constitution, and can be protected by the Federal Government
against infringement by individuals as well as by State or
local bodies.
All of us know--and this knowledge is supported by
statistics and press accounts--that the right to vote is
denied to vast numbers of Negroes, particularly in those
areas where they are found in large numbers, namely the
Southern States. Frequently, this is done by legal and
procedural subterfuge, often by social pressure, sometimes by
economic pressure, and--upon occasion--by outright coercion.
The net effect of all these methods is the practical
disenfranchisement of the vast proportion of potential Negro
voters of the South.
We believe this is to be a denial not only of
constitutional rights, but also of the principles of true
religion and of the ideals upon which our Republic was
founded. We seek to realize those ideals not by criminal
prosecutions after the fact, but by the preventive use of
injunctions to prevent such abuses from occurring. All that
is asked is that officials and citizens should conform to the
law and to the Constitution. If this is done, nothing else
need follow, since our aim is prevention, not punishment.
We are concentrating our efforts upon making the right to
vote effective, because if this right is guaranteed then many
other abuses which are now practices upon the disenfranchised
will be self-correcting.

* * * * *

Mr. Dirksen. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Bridges], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Payne], and the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. Schoeppel] are absent because of
illness.
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Young] is detained on
official business.
If present and voting, the Senator from Maine [Mr. Payne]
and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Schoeppel] would each vote
``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 18, as follows:

[[Page S6478]]

YEAS--71

Aiken
Allott
Anderson
Barrett
Beall
Bennett
Bible
Bricker
Bush
Butler
Capehart
Carlson
Carroll
Case, N.J.
Case, S. Dak.
Chavez
Church
Cooper
Cotton
Curtis
Dirksen
Douglas
Dworshak
Flanders
Frear
Goldwater
Gore
Green
Hayden
Hickenlooper
Hruska
Humphrey
Ives
Jackson
Javits
Jenner
Johnson, Tex.
Kefauver
Kennedy
Kerr
Knowland
Kuchel
Langer
Lausche
Magnuson
Malone
Mansfield
Martin, Iowa
Martin, Pa.
McNamara
Monroney
Morse
Morton
Mundt
Murray
Neely
Neuberger
O'Mahoney
Pastore
Potter
Purtell
Revercomb
Saltonstall
Smith, Maine
Smith, N.J.
Symington
Thye
Watkins
Wiley
Williams
Yarborough

NAYS--18

Byrd
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fulbright
Hill
Holland
Johnston, S.C.
Long
McClellan
Robertson
Russell
Scott
Smathers
Sparkman
Stennis
Talmadge
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--6

Bridges
Clark
Hennings
Payne
Schoeppel
Young
So Mr. Knowland's motion was agreed to; and the Senate
proceeded to the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6127) to
provide means of further securing and protecting the civil
rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the United
States.
Mr. Dirksen. Mr. President, I move that the Senate
reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.
Mr. Knowland. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on
the table.
The Vice President. The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from California [Mr. Knowland].
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me also talk about one other issue that we discussed
when we talk about the capacity of Yucca Mountain and, therefore, that
there will always be waste out there somewhere in these temporary
repositories at these nuclear reactors generating our commercial power.
Yes, there will be temporary storage for periods of cooling
pretransportation. There would be anyway under any circumstance. But
what we are talking about--and the Senator from Nevada showed a dip--is
that you can just double the numbers at each one of those, if you want.
And doubling the numbers, in my opinion, does have a risk factor,
certainly a management factor.
What is most important is that many of these temporary repositories
were licensed under State authority for a certain volume. To exceed
that means you have to go back to the same State authority that was
granted 15 or 20 years ago, versus today, and the politics have changed
a great deal, and we know that, because those States were led to
believe that the Federal Government would react responsibly in building
a permanent repository and the temporary facility would be just that--
it would not become a permanent facility. Therefore, it would be a
point to cool and a point to transfer. That is what those temporary
repositories were always intended to be.
So this really was the hand-in-glove scenario. Do not suggest that
one goes without the other at all because they were licensed not for
permanency but for temporary status while the Federal Government moved
through that time of establishing a permanent repository.
In that context, when we talk about the 70,000 ton cap at Yucca
Mountain as a statutory limitation, it may be statutory but it is not
physical. We do not know what the physical capability of Yucca Mountain
beyond 70,000 tons would be. It could be increased over time 30 years
out if, in fact, all of the geology and everything else met the
standards that the scientists, through the licensing process, had
established.
Twenty years from now, 30 years from now, I will not be here. I doubt
that the junior Senator from Nevada will be here. But on another day
and in another place, and if that science meets those standards, and it
is strong and stable, and the world's perspective has shifted, then,
remember, we are dealing with a statutory cap, not a physical
limitation, as it relates to Yucca Mountain.
The reason the statutory cap was put in place originally was because
we were looking at other repository locations in Vermont, in Washington
State, and other places at the time. That is why there was a cap put in
place.
I know Senators Cantwell and Jeffords and Wellstone have talked about
the limitations and, therefore, the argument that temporary
repositories would still have material in them. Remember, of course,
any of us who legislate know that a statutory cap is one that could be
changed if the politics and/or the science would argue a change were
there to do so. So let us not, in any way, fall prey to that argument
of limitation.
In that context, let me suggest that limitation is, in part, tied to
the geology of Yucca Mountain. I cannot tell you that I was there at
the beginning, but I was there during the legislative time when we were
looking at a variety of locations for repositories. I had examined them
all as a legislator. I read all of the preliminary geologic surveys.
It was determined at that time, in the mid-1980s, that Yucca Mountain
was, by far, the site that appeared to be the most desirable other
than, if you will, the large granite deposits in Vermont.

Granite has a unique shielding capability, and it is possible to
assume that you could put repositories deep into the granite of Vermont
and it would be an ideal situation. But our country did not go there.
Our country decided not to have multiple repositories, but a single
one, largely because of the politics of it.
Governor Guinn, in his arguments of vetoing it, suggested that Yucca
Mountain is unsuitable for a permanent repository because it is at the
center of volcanic activity, earthquake vault zones, and rapid ground
water flow. In other words, that is the geology of the mountain, as
spoken to by the Governor of Nevada.
Secretary Abraham has asserted Yucca Mountain is geologically stable
and experiences little ground water flow or rainfall.
The U.S. Geological Survey agrees, stating that the arid climate and
low probability of repository-piercing earthquakes or volcanic activity
support the recommendation of Yucca Mountain.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board also concurred, stating:

No individual technical or scientific factor has been
identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain
from consideration at this point.

That is a quote directly from the report by the technical review
group.
Based on these factors, the Energy Committee, on which I serve,
examined it and determined that it was fair that we bring this issue to
the floor in the form of a resolution and allow ourselves to go to the
next step.
And oh, by the way, the U.S. Geological Survey agrees with us. The
Governor asserted that the geology of Yucca Mountain is so bad that DOE
has given up on geologic isolation of waste in favor of manmade
barriers. In other words, the original concept was to create a facility
so deep in the Earth that the Earth itself would create the natural
barriers, and that you would not need to build a barrier within a
barrier, in other words, a manmade barrier.
Secretary Abraham points out that a balance of both natural and
engineered barriers has always been planned for the repository.
Existing geologic barriers are likely sufficient to prevent waste
from reaching ground water, but the engineered barriers provide
additional protection.
Do you remember what we did a couple years ago? Because we wanted to
make sure we did it right, because we wanted to address the arguments
that were being made, we put EPA into the mix and we extended the idea
of engineering out into the future a facility that would withstand
10,000 years of any kind of threat. That is when the barrier within the
barrier concept really began to develop.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Secretary to consider
engineered barriers when making this recommendation to the President.
Long before the Governor got into the argument, and long before the
Governor tried to find arguments that would fit his political need, we
had already thought of that. It was in the 1982 act. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, not the committee or the Senate, must ultimately
decide if the barriers are sufficient to prevent the seepage of
radionuclides. The committee agreed with Secretary Abraham's conclusion
that the consideration of man-made barriers is appropriate.
The Governor claims that DOE's computer models are unable to
adequately predict emission rates for

[[Page S6479]]

10,000 years. The NRC will rely on these models for licensing, as
absolute proof of compliance with EPA radiation protection standards is
not obtainable. DOE must be able to demonstrate compliance with EPA's
standards for the 10,000-year cycle.
The committee is concerned that DOE models are not adequate. The
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has expressed similar concerns but
has given guidance to DOE on improving the quality of its assessments.
In other words, what we are talking about and what the Secretary made
his recommendations on was the science far enough along to get us to
the point of moving it the next step. The science is not cooked. It is
not done. It is not over. It is evolving.
What I am suggesting is that as we question the science, the science
we now have is adequate to arrive at reasonable comfort under all of
the best engineered scenarios to allow the safety that is required. But
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others to require additional
science is possible.
The committee expects DOE to improve its computer models but does not
believe that existing weaknesses are sufficient to stop the
consideration. In other words, we are not even satisfied with the work
that has been done, although it is clear--and I must say for the Record
that the work that has been done is adequate, clearly adequate to get
us to this point of consideration. If we can make the best better, and
if in that we create the kind of both political and real comfort that
the State of Nevada needs, then we ought to do that. That is our
responsible role as public policymakers.
Let me conclude with the Governor's objection on what he calls the
completeness of the design. The Governor notes that DOE has not
completed the design of Yucca Mountain and cites 293 unresolved
technical issues. Because of these, the DOE will be unable to submit a
license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until 2004,
violating a statutory requirement to file an application within 90 days
of congressional approval of the President's recommendation. That has
been the argument placed by some.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Secretary to determine site
suitability before making a recommendation to the President. It does
not require him to complete the repository design or satisfy every
obligation for license application. In other words, the step required
by law was met, determining site suitability. It is from that process
within the law that moves us to where we are today.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is confident that the DOE can
supply all necessary information for license review. The 293 unresolved
issues are commitments from the DOE to supply additional information.
Forty-one of these issues have already been completed, reducing the
number to 252.

The Yucca Mountain project is already 12 years behind schedule. The
DOE's inability to file an application within 90 days is unfortunate
but not a violation of the statute. The provision is a directory, and
not a mandatory requirement.
In other words, like the science, we have met the standards but we
want to achieve a greater level.
In that regard, as it relates to the law and as it relates to an
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we have met
suitability as we now work to address the other issues that will become
a part of the licensing process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken with the distinguished Senator
from Alaska. We both have limited amounts of time to give, but we
decided the Senator from Nevada would be given 15 minutes; following
that the Senator from Alaska would be recognized to use up whatever
amount of his 25 minutes he wished; and following that I will speak
and/or the majority leader. That should take all of our time.
I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, Nevada's slogan is ``battle born.'' It is
on our State flag. It reflects the firmness of purpose and the
willingness to fight for what is right that is so much a part of what
characterizes Nevada. This is as true today as it was when our State
entered the Union during the Civil War.
When it comes to Yucca Mountain, we intend to fight. Nevada's other
motto is ``all for our country.'' This is proudly displayed on our
State seal. Nevadans have always been for our country. The ore taken
from Nevada's Comstock load financed the means by which we preserved
the Union during the Civil War, and Nevada has hosted aboveground
nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, the result being a weapon of
such mass destruction that it swiftly brought the end to the World War
II conflict.
Too many innocent people in Nevada and Utah died from horrible
cancer-related disease from the radiation fallout. So when it comes to
our national defense, Nevadans have always proudly stood tall for our
country.
Yucca Mountain is not needed for our defense and goes way beyond
patriotic duty.
I want to address the transportation issue. These are some charts.
Once again, because we don't know the exact transportation routes,
these are the charts from the Department of Energy's final
environmental impact statement. So it is all we have to go on.
The darker lines--it is probably very difficult to see the real light
red lines which are the rail--are the highways. This happens to be in
Illinois. Chicago is up here. These are all the various transportation
routes. Down here is St. Louis--all the various transportation routes
through this part of the country upon which nuclear waste could and
probably will travel. This happens to be the State of California. My
State is here, but all of these are various transportation routes going
through major cities--Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento.
This happens to be Colorado, Denver, a major metropolitan area here
as well.
This is Utah where we have Salt Lake City. We see the highways and
the railroads running through Salt Lake City.
This is Florida, with a huge amount of population today, a very
populated State--going through Miami, near Orlando and through Orlando,
with the train routes through Jacksonville, Tallahassee.
This is in Georgia--going through obviously their major population
center in Atlanta.
This is a summary of the country. These are just the highways across
the country. We can see that so much of the country and so many
population areas of the country are going to have nuclear waste
transported through them. Once again, we don't know the exact routes,
but these are the best routes we have to go on.
The Department of Energy and the nuclear industry wants Americans to
believe that taking tens of thousands of tons of dangerous radioactive
waste, removing it from reactor sites around the country, and putting
it on trains and trucks and barges now and moving it through cities and
towns and waterways across America so it can be buried on an earthquake
fault line in southern Nevada is a good idea. It is not.
According to the Department of Energy, 50,000 to 100,000 truck
shipments, 10,000 to 20,000 rail shipments, and 1,600 to 3,000 barge
shipments would be required to transport high-level nuclear waste to
Yucca Mountain.
The Government is trying to convince us that this project is going to
be safe; as a matter of fact, they say more than safe. The Government
would have us believe that getting this waste to Yucca Mountain is the
key to keeping our children safe from radioactive waste that is going
to be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
Anyone who believes the argument that this dangerous waste can be
transported without incident only needs to look at what happened last
July in the Baltimore Tunnel when a CSX freight train carrying
hazardous waste derailed and set off fires that burned for days. The
casks have been studied at about 1,475 degrees using computer
modeling--casks similar to that. The Baltimore Tunnel fire burned at
1,500 degrees for days, which is way beyond what these casks have been
put through--at least in the laboratories. Imagine a similar incident
to that which happened in Baltimore, except this time if it is
radioactive waste.

[[Page S6480]]

Forget an accident. What about a terrorist attack? People have talked
today about the record of shipping nuclear waste across Europe and the
United States. But post-September 11, we are in a different world. We
need to think about terrorism and the ways and uses and possible
attacks on these nuclear canisters as they are traveling across our
country. Hijacking or blowing up a truck containing nuclear waste would
be an easy way to devastate one of our metropolitan areas.
What we have on the chart here is difficult to see because it is
taken off of VHS footage. This is a canister that is very similar. This
is a newer company using their best technology trying to compete with
the currently used canisters. This is a TOW missile fired down through
there, and you can see that it penetrates it or would breach one of
these nuclear waste canisters that are going to be shipped across major
metropolitan areas in the United States.
Indeed, the most senior al-Qaida leader in U.S. custody told
interrogators that al-Qaida is seeking to explode a ``dirty'' bomb in
the United States. Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago after
intelligence indicated that he was participating in a plot to detonate
a ``dirty'' bomb in the United States. But al-Qaida doesn't need to buy
nuclear material to smuggle a ``dirty'' bomb into our country. Congress
is doing the hard work for them.
Every truckload of nuclear waste going to Yucca Mountain on our
highways through our towns and cities is a potential ``dirty'' bomb.
All the terrorists have to do is breach one of these canisters on one
of the trucks, trains, or barges, as the Senator from Michigan talked
about, in the Great Lakes, and we will witness another severe act of
terrorism.
So let's call this legislation what it is and what it is not: This is
not the Nuclear Waste Disposal Act. It is the ``terrorism facilitation
act,'' and it needs to be defeated. Nuclear powerplant sites are among
the most secure commercial facilities in the country. Following the
events of September 11, they are being made even more secure, and there
are even proposals for military protection at these sites.
Modest infrastructure improvements can further increase the level of
protection against any conceivable terrorist threat. Nuclear waste is
safe when stored onsite in casks surrounded by concrete. But it is
another story when these casks are going to be traveling by homes,
schools, and churches. At this time, we cannot be sure they will
survive real-world conditions. We may be able to develop the
technology, but we don't have it today. So we should not have Yucca
Mountain go forward until we develop the technology.
As I have said earlier, the casks have not been tested in real
fires--only with computer simulations, and not to the extent they need
to be tested. I will repeat that because it is so important.
The computer simulation is for 30 minutes at 1,475 degrees
Fahrenheit. The temperature in the Baltimore Tunnel fire read 1,500
degrees, and it burned for days. The NRC stated that it is doing a top-
to-bottom review--partly because of September 11 and the Baltimore
Tunnel fire--to review the security requirements, including a review of
the transportation casks' vulnerabilities to terrorism. Let's make sure
these casks are properly tested before Congress votes on Yucca
Mountain.
I want to talk about the Government's big lie. Not only is the
Government's plan dangerous for America, it also won't solve the
problem. The Government's big lie is that we Americans have a choice to
have one central nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain or to
have waste stored at the reactor sites around America. We talked about
it earlier today. That sounds as if it is an easy choice except that it
is not true.
Even if, by some luck, waste is shipped safely across the country to
Yucca Mountain, there will continue to be nuclear waste stored at all
operating reactor sites. You see, even if it were possible to
immediately and magically, as one of the Senators talked about today--
like our garbage is picked up, we simply, all at once, pick it up and
take it to the dump. It is not done that way with nuclear waste. There
will continue to be spent fuel stored at each and every operating
reactor in the country. That is because nuclear waste is highly
radioactive, thermally hot, and must be kept at reactor sites at water-
filled cooling ponds for at least 5 to 10 years. The only way spent
fuel storage can be eliminated from a reactor location is to shut down
the reactor and wait many years to ship the material after that.
I don't think that option of closing down figures into the nuclear
industry's long-range plan. We will have 65,000 metric tons of
commercial nuclear waste by the time Yucca Mountain is scheduled to
open. We produce about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year. The
DOE plans to ship about 3,000 tons. Just do the math. We won't get rid
of the nuclear waste backlog in the country for nearly a century--even
if, as somebody talked about, we expand Yucca Mountain, which would
obviously be politically a very difficult thing to do--excuse me. Yucca
Mountain will be filled long before then--as we see on the chart, in
2036.
I think it is important to understand this because the DOE and the
Secretary of Energy have been saying that it is safer to have this fuel
all shipped to one place. This is today. We have 45,000 tons of spent
nuclear high-level radioactive waste around the country. In 2010, when
Yucca Mountain is scheduled to open, we will have 65,000 tons. If we
start shipping about 3,000 tons a year, by 2036, when Yucca Mountain is
full, we will still have virtually the same as what we have today. So
we really have not accomplished too much.
If we don't have Yucca Mountain, it will be way up, but there is not
a lot of difference. It is a management thing, not a security risk.
The other thing is after Yucca Mountain is full, we start producing
more of it, and we get out to 2056, we can see what happens. So Yucca
Mountain doesn't really solve the problems people say it is going to
solve.
Moving waste to Yucca Mountain will just create one additional large
storage facility. To do that, the cost will be tens of thousands of
shipments of deadly radioactive waste on the Nation's highways and
railroads and waterways day after day, month after month. Obviously, it
will never end.
I want to talk briefly about the history of the process. This is
really Washington power politics. The reason I talk about this is
because we are going to get to the cost of Yucca Mountain in a moment.
In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gave the Energy Department
until 1998 to open a permanent underground geological depository for
high-level nuclear waste. At the time, they were studying several
sites. But because of politics out of the States of Nevada, Washington,
and Texas--Washington had the majority leader in the House, and Texas
had the Speaker of the House--Nevada ended up with the nuclear waste
``queen of spades.''
The deal reached was not by a scientific determination of which
location would be suitable. Basically, they just decided on politics
that Nevada would get this.
The site originally was for geology. They said: We are going to house
this waste underground, and it is going to protect us. Over the years,
they found that the geology would not protect us. So what they had to
do was build in manmade protections, and that drove the costs up
significantly.
Prior to 1987 when they said they were going to study one site, the
original cost estimate was $24 billion. In 1985 the cost estimate went
to $27 billion, and in 1987 it was $38 billion. They were studying
three sites. They said: We cannot do that; we will just study one site.
Now they are studying one site. The cost in 1995 was $37 billion, in
1998 the cost was $46 billion, and in 2001 the cost is $58 billion.
That is the equivalent of all 12 aircraft carriers for the United
States combined. As a matter of fact, that is more than in today's
dollars the cost of the Panama Canal, the World Trade Center, and
Hoover Dam all combined.
That does not include building a rail site to Yucca Mountain which,
according to the DOE, is going to be needed. So this is a boondoggle,
and we do not need to do it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

[[Page S6481]]

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. On the time of Senator Reid.
Mr. ENSIGN. Yes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I have no objection, Mr. President.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, according to the NRC Chairman, people have
said: Do we have to do this right now? According to the NRC Chairman,
we do have the capacity to store these materials safely for decades to
come--NRC Chairman Richard Meserve.
There has been a lot made of one of the Senators talking about what
do we do with this waste if we do not transport it, and I wish to
conclude my remarks by giving people an answer. If not Yucca Mountain,
then what?
Onsite dry cask storage is good for at least 100 years. We know that.
These canisters are safe for at least 100 years, according to the
Department of Energy. It is about $4 billion to $5 billion to store it
onsite, and that includes all of the costs associated with storing it
onsite--$4 billion to $5 billion instead of $60 billion plus. It is
going to be at least $60 billion, make no mistake about it.
Every year, we have been taking the cost up by over $10 billion in
the estimates. Where is the cost going to go from here? We know this
situation is going to be too expensive. What we need to do is keep the
waste onsite. It is a lot cheaper.
There is promising science. There is pyroprocessing. There is what is
called accelerator technology transmutation. These are fancy scientific
words. The bottom line is they are modern recycling of nuclear waste or
partially spent nuclear fuel rods. We are recycling everything we can
in this country. We need to continue to invest in recycling technology.
For those who are supporters of nuclear power, as I am, recycling
will make nuclear power more viable in the future, I believe, because
if we have solved the waste problem, instead of burying it in the
ground where it is too expensive and waste partially spent nuclear fuel
rods, if we invest in recycling technology, we will have a permanent
energy supply for generation after generation of Americans.
If one believes in nuclear power, let's make it less costly and let's
invest in the recycling technology and keep it onsite without the risks
of transportation.

I wish to make one other point before I close. The senior Senator
from Idaho talked about 1957. We are talking about a procedural motion.
He talked about 1957 where somebody offered a motion to proceed, and I
have been saying all day we are violating Senate tradition today.
He said that in 1957, somebody in the minority offered a motion to
proceed and that debate took a week. At the end of the week, that
motion to proceed actually was voted for by a vote of 70-something to
28. While that vote is accurate, what he is inaccurate about is the
majority leader supported the vote. What we have said is no motion to
proceed has ever come to the Senate floor successfully over the
objections of the majority leader, and that statement is still true,
even with the 1957 precedent.
We think this still sets a very dangerous precedent on Senate
tradition if this vote goes forward today.
Lastly, I wish to thank a few people in our State who have done a
phenomenal job of fighting this fight for the people of the State of
Nevada and I believe for Americans in general. First, the senior
Senator from Nevada, the assistant majority leader. No one has worked
more tirelessly on this issue than he has. His staff has done an
incredible job, as has my staff. I am thankful for the yeoman work of
our Gov. Kenny Guinn and other elected officials, both Republican and
Democrat, in our State who have tirelessly fought this issue.
If we lose this vote, I am committed to the belief that one day,
years from now, leaders will look back on what the Senate did today and
simply say: What were we thinking?
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will take such time as I need.
Mr. President, it is fair to reflect on where we are. Today the
Senate is going to decide whether the Secretary of Energy should be
allowed to make an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
the use of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste. That is the only issue before this body.
The Senate today is not--I repeat, is not--deciding whether science
and engineering are sufficient for the Yucca Mountain site to be
operated safely and in compliance with EPA and other agency
regulations. That is really the job of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
We have had a lot of discussion. Some of the discussion is associated
with fear. I have looked for a synonym for red herring. I do not know
if fluorescent herring is as close as we are going to get. In any
event, we have to deal with this in a responsible manner.
Let me share with my colleagues what some of the public opinionmakers
have said. I quote from the New York Times. This is July 9, ``A
Critical Vote on Nuclear Waste.'' It says:

Any Senator tempted to vote against the resolution must
recognize the severe consequences. A nay vote or a failure to
vote means that Yucca Mountain is effectively dead and the
nation must start anew to look for a disposal solution. A yes
vote means simply that the project can proceed to the next
step, a formal licensing application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which will spend years analyzing all
aspects of the repository to see if it warrants a license to
operate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times
article, ``A Critical Vote on Nuclear Waste,'' and a Chicago Tribune
article, ``Crossroads of Nuclear Waste Storage,'' dated July 9 both be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, July 9, 2002]

A Critical Vote on Nuclear Waste

The Senate is facing a momentous vote this week that will
determine whether a plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain in Nevada moves to the next stage of regulatory
scrutiny or dies prematurely. Any legislative delay now will
be likely to terminate the project, and that must not be
allowed to happen. If Yucca is abandoned, the nation will be
right back where it was decades ago--with spent nuclear fuel
piling up at reactor sites around the country and no plan for
its permanent disposal.
In recent weeks the critics of Yucca Mountain have grown
increasingly alarmist in an effort to stampede any wavering
senators. They claim that Yucca has geological and technical
flaws that render it unsafe. But those are precisely the
issues that will be examined in excruciating detail by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission if a licensing application is
allowed to move forward. The critics also fret over the
possibility of catastrophic accidents while the fuel
transported from reactor sites to Nevada. But they seldom
mention that such shipments have gone on without incident in
this country and Europe for the past three decades--in
quantities that actually exceed the amount that would be
shipped to Yucca.
The Senate finds itself in this pivotal spot because the
statute that designated Yucca Mountain as the sole candidate
for a disposal site set up a tight timetable of necessary
approvals. The state of Nevada vetoed the project, as was its
right, thereby throwing the decision back to Congress. The
House has already voted, by a thumping margin, to go forward.
But unless the Senate also votes to override Nevada by late
this month, the designation of Yucca as the candidate
repository will expire.
Unfortunately, the Senate Democratic leadership is working
against the proposal. Harry Reid, the majority whip, who
hails from Nevada, is adamantly opposed to storage in his
state. Tom Daschle, the majority leader, opposes the project
and is refusing to schedule a Yucca Mountain vote.
Fortunately, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act allows any senator
to request that the Yucca resolution be brought to the floor
for time-limited debate and a vote, a step that Republicans
say they will take as early as this week, possibly even
today.
Any senator tempted to vote against the resolution must
recognize the severe consequences. A nay vote or a failure to
vote means that Yucca Mountain is effectively dead and the
nation must start anew to look for a disposal solution. A yes
vote means simply that the project can proceed to the next
step, a formal licensing application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which will spend years analyzing all
aspects of the repository to see if it warrants a license to
operate. Given the stakes, it would be irresponsible for the
Senate--most of whose members have little detailed knowledge
of the Yucca proposal--to decide this issue on the fly,
thereby blocking the detailed technical review that it
deserves.

[[Page S6482]]

[From the Chicago Tribune, July 9, 2002]

A Crossroads in Nuclear Waste Storage

(By Dick Durbin)

The advent of nuclear power more than 50 years ago brought
with it both great promise and great responsibility. Our
ability to harness the power of the atom has paid substantial
dividends for our society, but it has also left us with the
formidable challenge of safely storing the byproducts of
nuclear power generation. This is a challenge our nation must
meet so that future generations are not endangered by today's
nuclear waste.
Presently, all of the spent fuel from nuclear power plants
and research reactors throughout the country remains on-site
at each reactor. None of these facilities was designed to
safely store that waste on a permanent basis, and leaving
spent fuel in temporary storage around the nation poses both
a security threat and an environmental hazard.
Everyone agrees that we need to find a safe and permanent
way to store this material and such a storage site has been
proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. I have been to Yucca
Mountain, which is located 90 miles from Las Vegas on federal
land at the remote Nevada nuclear test site. The waste would
be stored more than 600 feet underground but more than 500
feet above the water table, sealed in steel containers placed
under a titanium shield. A security force at the Nevada test
site is in place to protect the area, and the airspace around
Yucca Mountain is already restricted.
When this issue has come before Congress in the past, I
have opposed efforts to move waste to a temporary facility at
Yucca Mountain before there was a scientific determination of
whether waste could be safely stored there on a permanent
basis. I also opposed earlier measures that would have
mandated dangerously low standards for environmental
protection at the site.
Recently, however, I have been encouraged by the fact that
the Environmental Protection Agency has successfully
established radiation and groundwater contamination standards
for the Yucca Mountain storage site. These standards were
derived from recommendations by experts at the national
academy of Sciences and were developed after extensive public
comment and scientific analysis. All of these standards
greatly exceed the standards debated by Congress in the two
previous bills I opposed.
No site will ever be perfect for the storage of high-level
nuclear waste. But I believe the studies, which have already
been conducted, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission review
still to come provide sufficient assurances that Yucca
Mountain is the most appropriate site available and should be
used as the permanent national nuclear waste repository.
Therefore, I have decided to support the Yucca Mountain
resolution, which would make that facility the national
nuclear waste repository.
I am still concerned, however, with the movement of
thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country to
Nevada. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Illinois
would rank seventh in truck shipments under what is called
the ``mostly truck scenario.'' The same Energy Department
analysis concludes that Illinois would rank sixth in rail
shipments in the ``mostly rail scenario.'' Although waste has
been shipped through Illinois and other states in the past,
approving Yucca Mountain would initiate the largest waste
shipping campaign in the history of our country--both in
terms of the number of shipments and the amount of miles
traveled for high-level nuclear waste.
Unless we scrutinize safety factors and security risks, the
large-scale transportation of radioactive materials has the
potential to cause a host of serious challenges to cities and
communities along shipping routes. This issue is all the more
important in light of the terrorist threats we are likely to
face in the years ahead.
In Illinois, nearly half of our electricity is generated
from nuclear power. Our state contains seven nuclear power
plants, two nuclear research reactors and more commercial
nuclear waste than any other state. In addition, we are home
to one of the busiest transportation corridors in the nation,
putting our state squarely at the intersection of the nuclear
crossroads. With the safety of Illinoisans at stake, finding
the safest way to move nuclear waste to a location where it
poses the least risk is imperative.
Congress must insist on a comprehensive safety program for
nuclear waste transportation. We must require the waste
containment casks to be tested to ensure they could withstand
intense fires, high-speed collisions and other threats that
may occur during transport. It is also essential that states
be consulted on the selection of transportation routes and
are given longer advance notification of waste shipments.
Other measures that need to be addressed include banning
inland waterway shipments of nuclear waste, requiring
dedicated trains and establishing a minimum number of armed
escorts to accompany each nuclear waste convoy.
We should move forward with making Yucca Mountain the
central repository for our nation's nuclear waste. But we
must not forget that the site can only serve its national
purpose if the waste is transported safely. Before shipments
to Yucca Mountain begin, we need to establish a
transportation plan to ensure the safety and security of the
communities that lie in the path of those shipments--and we
must begin that work today.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will refer to a couple of other
articles. A Seattle Times editorial, Sunday, June 2:

If the Senate does not follow the House lead, the Energy
Department must start over. The agency must look again at
other finalists--Deaf Smith County, Texas, or Washington's
own Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

I refer to the Oregonian, Saturday, June 8:

If Yucca Mountain is blocked, nuclear waste could sit
forever in temporary, poorly planned sites all across this
country, including the Trojan nuclear powerplant. Yucca
Mountain is clearly the best option available.

From the Washington Post, April 30:

Congress should override Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn's veto
and allow work on Yucca Mountain to proceed.
But while years of investigation have not answered all of
the questions, neither have they produced adequate reason to
stop the project in its tracks.

And April 21, the New York Times:

There is no question that the transportation issues will
need to be explored in great depth.
But the appropriate place for those issues to be addressed
is in a painstaking regulatory proceeding before the NRC.

Not before a rushed Congress debate.
So everyone understands, we are authorizing the licensing process in
the sense that the administration will now be able, if we prevail on
this vote, to proceed with a licensing process. That is all.
We had a lot of discussion, and I am inclined to think we have
probably spent 20 years or so moving this process along relative to the
disposition of the waste. People sometimes have different visions of
what Yucca Mountain is all about.
This is a picture of Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain has environmental
attributes that would contribute to the safe disposal of high-level
waste: Remote location with the nearest metropolitan area about 100
miles away, high security because of the proximity to the Nevada Test
Site and the Nellis Air Force range, arid climate, deep water table,
isolated hydrologic basin without flow into rivers or oceans and
multiple natural barriers.
This is Yucca Mountain; this is the site of the tunnel. I have been
there. It is in existence. And $4 billion of taxpayers' money has been
expended.

It is important to know just what this location involves. This is a
picture of the test site area. For the last 40 years, we have been
using this area as a test site for nuclear bombs and various nuclear
weapons. It is an area that has levels of radioactivity associated with
it. For all practical purposes, in spite of the fact we hate to admit
we do this, we put certain areas off limits. This is one because of the
high levels of radioactivity, unexploded munitions, and so forth. Yucca
Mountain is included in this area.
While we have looked for other places, it is fair to say one of the
conditions was this area had been set aside for a nuclear test site.
Now, another chart shows tests in other States. As we look at the
disposition, we should go back and look at events leading to the
selection of Yucca Mountain for a study. There were nine potential
sites. There was the Hanford site in Washington and Yucca Mountain in
Nevada. In Utah, there was Davis Canyon and Lavender Canyon. In Texas
was the Deaf Smith County site and the Swisher site and a couple of
sites in Mississippi, sites in Texas. We made a cut. We cut from nine
sites and left Hanford, we left Yucca Mountain, Davis Canyon, Texas and
Mississippi. Three sites were Presidentially approved: Washington,
Nevada, and Texas.
In 1986, there was one site left. It was selected. That was Yucca
Mountain. Congress passed the NWPA, as amended, mandating only the
Yucca Mountain site for the detailed site characterization.
This has been done. We have expended the money. We went through a
process. If we do not take care of Yucca Mountain today, what are we
going to do? Start this process all over. It will be Texas, Utah,
Washington, Mississippi. We will go through this process--perhaps
Vermont. They have a lot of marble stabilization out there. The point
is, we would be derelict to walk away from the obligation we have
today.
The transportation systems we have heard so much about. This chart
shows

[[Page S6483]]

the existing transportation routes to WIPP, a low-level isolation pilot
plant associated with the Livermore Laboratories and others in New
Mexico.
I have been there. It is in the salt caverns. You go down in the huge
caverns where they store this low-level waste. It is interesting to see
the routing, what States are affected and which are not. We move wastes
from various laboratories. These are low-level transuranic wastes that
move across Highway No. 80 and so forth. Clearly, they go in one
location.
For those arguing the merits of Missouri and waste going through
Missouri, the waste leaves Missouri. I am not suggesting there is a
final plan associated with it. This is where we have been moving the
waste so far. It is low-level waste. We do not know where the various
agencies are going to make these decisions and those agencies--the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of Transportation--will bear the responsibility of
determining what routes are taken.
We have moved almost 3,000 shipments of spent fuel. This is high-
level waste moved between 1964 and 2000. We moved them over 1.7 million
miles. We have had zero radiation releases. Low level to WIPP is 900
shipments, and almost 900,000 miles. We had 3,892 shipments and moved
them over 2.6 million miles with zero harmful radiation.
Now the importance of nuclear energy and a source of electricity: 51
percent is coal, natural gas is 16 percent, oil is 2.9 percent, hydro
is 7.2 percent, miscellaneous is 2.2, nuclear is 20 percent.

There are those who would like to see the nuclear industry choke on
its own waste and simply go away. That is an impractical reality. It
does not flow. If we are talking about reducing emissions or talking
about global warming, clearly the nuclear industry in this country has
to maintain its prominence. We have not had any new nuclear plants come
online in 20 years. Clearly, nuclear energy plays a major role. It is
emission free. The problem is the problem we have in the Senate today,
and that is addressing the disposal of the waste.
It is important to recognize where these plants are located: the
State of Washington, California, Texas, and on to the east coast.
Clearly, there are a number of nuclear plants producing 20 percent of
our electricity. This chart shows the States.
It is important to note the rationale that Congress developed to
address the disposal of this waste. That is those that use nuclear
power would pay a special assessment into a fund that currently has
about $17 billion; $11 billion came from the ratepayer. The Federal
Government takes that money and agrees to take the waste. They agreed
in a contractual commitment in 1998 to take the waste. They did not
take the waste because they were not ready. They are in violation of a
contract. The litigation associated with this breach of the contractual
commitments is estimated to be somewhere between $40 and $70 billion.
That is a hit to the U.S. taxpayer.
The reality is that these ratepayers in Washington paid $98 million;
in Arizona, $337 million; in Texas, $334 million; in South Carolina,
$876 million; in Pennsylvania, $1 billion; Maine, $67 million. These
are fees the ratepayers have paid to the Government to take the waste.
We have that obligation. The occupant of the chair is well versed in
contractual law. We have an obligation to perform if we enter into a
contract. We failed to do that.
The taxpayer bears the burden even though the ratepayers have paid to
the Federal Government under the terms of the contract. There you have
the responsibility associated with the issue: If this is a Government
bailout, will this come to the Appropriations Committee for
appropriations? No, the ratepayers have paid this amount.
Let's look at it State by State. Here is New York. New York is 23
percent dependent on nuclear energy; 18 percent coal; gas, 28 percent
and so forth.
They have operating reactors, six, and three sites, and as a
consequence they have a significant portion of waste in their State.
The waste is on the small charts. It is important to reflect on what
happens to the waste that is in your State if, indeed, Yucca Mountain
does not receive the approval of this body.
We find that there are 2,378 metric tons of nuclear fuel stored in
New York. Do you want that fuel moved? That is a question.
The next chart is Connecticut. Connecticut has 45 percent dependence
on nuclear energy. Again, the waste stored in that State is 1,500 tons.
That is not going to move unless we pass this legislation.
Illinois is almost 50 percent dependent on nuclear energy. They have
5,800 tons of waste, high-level waste. I can go through the other
charts:
California, 17 percent dependent; Maryland, 27 percent dependent;
Massachusetts, I think 14 percent dependent; New Jersey, 49 percent
dependent; and Washington State is relatively insignificant at 8
percent.
Nevertheless, the point I want to make here is that nuclear energy is
important, the energy development in these States and the waste is
piling up, and it is significant.
Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time does the Senator from Oklahoma need? I
am going to use most of the remaining time, but if he would like 5
minutes? Why don't you take 4 minutes, and you will probably get 5.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator for giving me a little bit of time. I
believe it is necessary.
A number of people have asked me why it is that I support nuclear
energy when my home State does not have any nuclear power. My response
is that nuclear energy directly benefits every Oklahoman even though
not a single kilowatt of energy is produced from nuclear power in our
state. Oklahomans benefit from nuclear energy in the form of decreased
power bills and increased national and economic security.
Currently, nuclear power represents 20 percent of our Nation's
electricity generation. As an integral part of the U.S. energy mix,
nuclear energy is a secure energy source that the nation can depend on.
Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is not subject to
unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost
fluctuations, or dependence on foreign suppliers.
However, the lack of storage space for nuclear waste is now
threatening the existence of nuclear power. If Yucca Mountain is not
approved, nuclear powerplants will be forced to start shutting down at
some point because there will be no place to store the waste. This
would have profound consequences for all Oklahomans.
Even though Oklahoma does not have any nuclear powerplants, if
nuclear power goes off line, it would cause an economic crisis in
Oklahoma. The reason is simple. If you take 20 percent of the power
supply off line, other States' demands of Oklahoma's power would
increase, thus creating a smaller supply of energy, and a corresponding
increase in the cost of energy for Oklahomans. The days of utility
rates in Oklahoma being 19 percent below the national average power
rate would be over.
Higher energy prices affect everyone. However, when the price of
energy rises that means the less fortunate in our society must make a
decision between keeping the heat and lights on or paying for other
essential needs. In a recent study on Public Opinion on Poverty, it was
reported that one-quarter of Americans report having problems paying
for several basic necessities. In this study, currently 23 percent have
difficulty in paying their utilities. That is almost one out of every
four Americans. I will not support attacks on our energy supply, which
hurt the poor in Oklahoma and around the Nation, in the name of an
environmental crusade.
In the mid-1980s, I traveled around the country with President
Reagan's energy Secretary, Don Hodel, to bring attention to the need
for measures to decrease our Nation's energy dependence. Additionally,
in January 1998, I elicited virtual consensus from the members of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff that energy security was a too-often-overlooked
aspect of our national security needs. Additionally, in just the last
couple of weeks, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that
U.S. dependency on foreign energy ``is a serious strategic issue . . .
My sense

[[Page S6484]]

is that (our) dependency is projected to grow, not to decline.''
It is essential for a strong Navy.
The fact is we are at war right now. Every American is benefiting
from the war on terrorism. Our subs are nuclear. Our aircraft carriers
are nuclear. Every time we send American ships to a different part of
the world, whether to keep the peace or defeat an aggressor they head
there powered by nuclear fuel. Where does that spent fuel go? Right now
the material goes to Idaho. That is right. It is transported right now.
It's stored on the surface. So what happens if we fail to set up a
permanent repository? We create what Secretary Abraham calls
uncertainty regarding the ``continued capability of our naval
operations.'' A strong Navy fuels our ability to remain a world power.
And we need a safe way to handle what is fueling our Navy.
The cold war is over.
To those of us who grew up in a time when we had bomb shelters in our
backyards, nothing would be more welcome than seeing us dismantle
weapons we no longer need. Every time I read about the plans for
turning plutonium into ``mixed-oxide'' or MOX fuel, I see the results
of our past determination to resist Soviet domination.
But whether surplus plutonium is made into MOX fuel or another form,
waste is still left over. And it must go to a permanent repository. And
that is not just for our own good. How can we urge other countries to
get rid of their nuclear weapons if they don't see us doing it? We are
now turning swords into plowshares by helping Russia convert its
surplus weapons material into fuel for American reactors. Even the by-
products of this fuel, once used, will need a repository. Yucca
Mountain will provide a safe place for the materials in weapons no
longer pointed at our enemies. And it will be a powerful example to
other countries that no longer need weapons pointed at us.
Maybe a few years back we could not conceive of terrorists making
bombs out of planes and striking at the very heart of America. We can
now. Make no mistake. They are out there and in our country. Yes, it is
good that we are racing to put neutron flux detectors and gamma ray
detectors at all our airports. But terrorists don't need to bring
radioactive material into the United States. There is enough of it
here.
And these materials--relics of the cold war--are scattered around the
country. Yucca Mountain will put this material where it belongs: safe
and secure 1,000 feet underground. A few days back, after Jose Padilla,
A.K.A. Abdullah al Muhajir, was arrested, I saw this headline in ``The
Washington Post: U.S. Source of Isotopes Become Focus After Arrest.''
Here is what the Post said: ``Of the thousands of nuclear sources still
in use, or decommissioned to known storage sites, many are thought to
be vulnerable to theft or black market sale.'' That is why Yucca
Mountain is so important. That is why we have to move now to create a
permanent repository. That is why we need a central underground
disposal site, where spent fuel can be more safely and efficiently
monitored.

And so, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Yucca Mountain. We caught
one terrorist. We can't catch them all. They will come through our
airports. They will dock in our major ports. They will go through
customs without a hitch because they possess not plutonium, but
knowledge. Terrorists want to use that knowledge to threaten our way of
life. A vote for Yucca Mountain will make that hard for them.
What is America's record when it comes to transportation of nuclear
materials? It is astonishingly safe. There are some people who act as
if transporting nuclear fuel will be a new thing for America. The fact
is that we've seen more than 3,000 shipments of it over the past 40
years. In all those years, there has been zero danger to the
environment, zero release of radioactivity, and zero fatalities.
We have seen 1.7 million miles of these shipments without any release
of radioactive contents. And don't forget: The Energy Department also
accepts used nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors under a non-
proliferation pact. They come in from Europe and Latin America. They
are brought by train to South Carolina. And we're going to do that
until 2006--22,743 separate used fuel assemblies. This is something we
know how to do. Because we have done it. And we have done it
exceptionally well.
Will we avoid transporting waste if we don't pass Yucca Mountain?
Absolutely not. A lot of sites are reaching their limits for keeping
used nuclear fuel on location. 40 of them will need additional storage
in the next 8 years. But they don't have the space for it. Where is
that waste going to go? Secretary Abraham put his finger on the issue
when he testified last February. ``Our real choice is not between
transporting or not transporting used fuel, but between transporting it
with as much planning and safety as possible, or transporting it with
such organization as the moment might invite.''
To keep that waste in 39 States is to keep it at 131 locations never
designed for permanent disposal, never intended to manage this waste
indefinitely. Clearly, any solution to the disposal of this waste
requires it be transported somewhere.
Furthermore, as skillful as America is at transporting hazardous
materials, we are not the only people in the world who do that well.
Europe has been doing it since 1966 about as much material as we want
to send to Yucca Mountain. Fatalities? Hazards from radioactivity?
Zero.
There are those who see in this plan the heavy-handed approach of
Washington. As a former mayor of Tulsa, I am always very sensitive to
the importance of local control. In fact, the way America handles the
problem of nuclear waste is a victory for local control. State and
local governments can select alternate routes if they oppose those
proposed by DOE and 11 States have done just that. As they should.
Meanwhile, Federal and State and local authorities have worked
together. Worked with training. Worked on contingency plans. Worked on
mutual assistance agreements. Worked as partners. As we should.
Building on our Nation's fine records, as the ranking member of the
Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, I look
forward to working with the various Federal agencies to ensure the
proper federal role in providing security for nuclear waste shipments.
As a former mayor of Tulsa, I will also keep in mind the critical role
that State and local governments must play in this process.
In an attempt to misinform and frighten the public, extreme
environmentalists have been saying that the shipment of waste would be
creating thousands of ``mobile Chernobyls.'' I have already discussed,
our Nation's safety record with regard to the shipment of nuclear
materials. However, I must mention that, until the Yucca Mountain
project is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is
about 10 years off, the Departments of Energy and Transportation will
not designate shipping routes for nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. If
anyone implies that they know the routes, they are not telling the
truth because the decision makers of those routes will not consider
routes for many years.
As ranking member of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear
Safety Subcommittee, I am looking forward to my key role in working
with the various federal agencies to ensure the safe transportation of
our commercial and military nuclear waste.
Make no mistake. A vote against Yucca Mountain is a vote against
nuclear power, and, thus, a vote to hurt our energy, economic, and
national security.
I thank the Senator from Alaska for giving me a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there be 10
minutes additional time equally divided between Senator Murkowski and
the Senator from Nevada.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I believe we have a Senator from the
majority coming over. But I will take--how much time may I ask is
remaining on our side, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to take 10 minutes and reserve the
remainder of my time.

[[Page S6485]]

As I indicated a few moments ago, there is only one issue before the
Senate, and that is the reality that we are about to vote to determine
whether science and engineering are sufficient for the Yucca Mountain
site to be operated safely in compliance with EPA and other agency
regulations in pursuing a license by the Department of Energy. That is
the question.
The ultimate transportation and other matters are going to be
determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is a very
competent group. But the Senate is not now deciding whether or how
spent fuel will be transported to a site if it is licensed and
constructed.
As I indicated, the Department of Transportation, the Secretary of
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, will proceed and that will
take some time.
What we have today is basically two choices: We could follow the
recommendations of the Secretary of Energy and the President of the
United States--the U.S. House of Representatives has done its job, and
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--and allow the
Secretary of Energy to proceed and apply for a license or we can
abandon some 20 years of work, over $7 billion invested in science, in
engineering, and the peer-reviewed conclusions of responsible
scientists within and outside Government, and then what do we do? We
begin the task all over at the expense of the taxpayers.
That is where we are. There is no middle ground and no way to duck
the issue or duck the responsibility. As we say in Alaska, it is time
to fish or cut bait.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act was deliberately and carefully crafted
to ensure that both the Senate and the House would deal with the issue.
The House met its obligation by an overwhelming vote of 306 to 117.
The House agreed with the President's decision and voted to allow the
Secretary of Energy to proceed with the license application. The
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held 3 full days of hearings
to examine all aspects of this issue, including a full day where we
welcomed the State of Nevada to select its witnesses who would appear
in opposition to the resolution. The committee carefully reviewed each
and every argument raised by the State of Nevada, either in the
Governor's message or by the State representatives.
I commend the report to the attention of my colleagues. We have that
report before us. Here it is. In a careful and methodical manner, this
particular report discusses each and every argument raised in the
process.
Under any impartial analysis, there is no legitimate reason to object
to the President's decision to deny the Secretary the opportunity to
apply for a license before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
What are the consequences if we fail to act? On the other hand, there
are many serious consequences if we do not approve the resolution. The
immediate consequence is set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Section 115(b) is explicit. If the resolution is not approved within 90
days--the 90-day period for congressional review--such site shall be
disapproved. The magic date is July 27. If this is not approved by that
date, the site shall be disapproved.
Further, it does not say that the decision is postponed or the
decision is simply put off for some reason to be revisited at a more
convenient time. It explicitly and without qualification says ``such
site shall be disapproved.''
There are the consequences of that disapproval, and those
consequences are serious. At a minimum, Congress will need to
reconsider the previous sites--Hanford in Washington, Deaf Smith
County, TX--giving serious consideration by using the Hanford
Reservation as an interim site to meet our contractual obligations to
the utilities and deal with defense in other ways.
We have a significant amount of defense waste already at Hanford.
Instead of moving material from Hanford, we might have to consider
moving additional material there for the foreseeable future.
Should Congress not act and we start this process over, my guess is
we will have to go back to where we were in 1982 when there was serious
consideration of granite formations in the Michigan Peninsula, and
elsewhere; salt caverns in Mississippi and Louisiana; granite in
Vermont, and so forth. Some have suggested that we use Federal
reservations as interim sites, as has been proposed in the past. With
the transportation scenario, that will be far more complex than that
which has been considered to date--perhaps simply leaving the spent
fuel onsite in Vermont, Illinois, Maryland, California, or elsewhere.
Let there be no mistake. Because of the statutory time constraints
and the directives in the law, a vote against the motion to proceed is
a vote to direct the Secretary of Energy to cease all further work at
Yucca Mountain and close the office until Congress decides otherwise.
I hope my colleagues will look around in the Chamber because only
Nevada--only Nevada--will not be in the next round.
There is an implication to the taxpayer because we have the nuclear
waste. Aside from taking Nevada off the table, there are other
unavoidable and unpleasant consequences of failure to face up to our
responsibilities. Members may not recall, but the cost of permanent
storage of spent fuel is totally financed by ratepayers who use the
energy. The fee is collected by the utilities and every one of our
constituents who have nuclear energy as part of their energy mix have
been paying into the nuclear waste to pay for storage. These costs do
not--let me repeat--do not come out of the General Treasury. They come
from ratepayers that use nuclear energy. These ratepayers are in
virtually every State in the Union, including States that do not have
nuclear powerplants. Those ratepayers and the States that either have
nuclear powerplants or whose citizens pay for the use of nuclear power
have a contractual obligation to set in statute with the Federal
Government to take spent fuel from their sites.

The last administration thought they could avoid the problem and
suggested there was no binding requirement. The courts thought
otherwise.
If you like the idea of coming up with $60 billion or $70 billion or
$80 billion of taxpayer money--that is taxpayer, not ratepayer money--
then vote against the motion to proceed. The $60 billion to $80 billion
would likely not be the end of the toll for the taxpayer either
because, as a matter of national interest, we will need to find the
solution, and the States will incur expenses as well as those
associated with liability. Leaving the waste is a consideration, but it
is a bad idea.
In addition to economic issues, there is the health and safety issues
associated with continuing to leave both spent fuel and high-level
waste onsite. Remember, the current site-storage for the reactors is
and was designed to be temporary. Yes, the present storage is the
safest, but it is not a permanent solution. It is an interim solution.
The Chairman of the NRC has been very up front, saying that the
present arrangement for the temporary storage of spent fuel at
commercial reactors is safe, and it is, as he states, a ``temporary''
measure.
Exchanging Yucca Mountain for 131 sites in 39 States and permanent
repositories scattered around the country is not something the Chairman
recommends nor that any other thoughtful person suggested. But that is
precisely what those who oppose the motion to proceed are endorsing.
There can be no other conclusion.
We also have the situation of utilities running out of room for
storage and needing to find an alternative site if Yucca Mountain does
not go forward. If a repository is not built, these utilities need to
be shut down. In shutting down the reactors, we are going to have to
look to alternative sources of fuel. What are they? Coal? Oil? Nuclear
is clean power.
As we address our concerns over emissions and the recognition that
nuclear provides about 20 percent of the electric power generated in
this country, it makes a significant addition in our energy mix. Do any
of the opponents to the motion to proceed have a suggestion on how we
are going to replace that 20 percent? I guess the answer is more fossil
fuels.
There is no way that this Nation will ever approve the Kyoto targets
on climate change without nuclear power. There is no way to replace
nuclear energy within our electric power mix.
For those of you who experienced shortages on the west coast last
year,

[[Page S6486]]

think where this Nation would be and what we would be in for if we had
to shut off 20 percent of our electric power simply because we could
not agree on a solution to the waste problem.
If you don't know how much of the electric power in your State comes
from nuclear, I have gone through the numbers: Connecticut, 40 percent;
Illinois, 50 percent; California, 17 percent; Vermont, 67 percent; New
York, 23 percent; Maryland, 28 percent; Michigan, 18 percent; and,
Georgia, 27 percent. How much waste is in those States that needs to
get out? It is thousands and thousands of metric tons.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe I have 1 minute. I will conclude. I see the
majority leader is seeking recognition. I want to respect the
traditions of the Senate.
I will conclude with the reality that the issue before us is clear.
All one has to do is read the commission report. The Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources performed the review, as we would expect.
We carefully considered every objection raised by the State of Nevada.
We conducted 3 days of hearings. We considered the issue in an open
business meeting and favorably reported on a bipartisan basis. We filed
a comprehensive report that discusses every argument raised by the
State of Nevada, and why the argument is not persuasive or not relevant
to the issue before the Senate.
I commend my colleagues, Senator Ensign and Senator Reid. I
understand why the Senators from Nevada oppose the resolution, but I
cannot understand why anyone else would.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time to make the
statement I am about to make.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we should not be having this vote
today. There are still far too many questions about the wisdom and
safety of creating a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain for
anyone to be able to cast an informed, responsible vote on this matter.
But we are here.
We are here because the Bush administration and some of its allies in
Congress--and in the energy industry--are determined to exploit unique
rules that were written 20 years ago and apply only to this bill.
I can't help but think how ironic it is that less than a week after
America celebrated the genius of our Founders, who intended this Senate
to be the world's most deliberative body, we are being forced to vote
on a matter of such grave importance before we can have an informed,
honest debate.
Even more troubling than the break this vote represents with our
past, is the threat it poses to America's future. Let us be very clear:
The claim that science supports building a national nuclear waste dump
at Yucca Mountain is simply not true. The truth is, leading independent
scientists have raised troubling questions about the scientific basis
for the Department of Energy's recommendation regarding Yucca Mountain.
A recent letter to Congress from the independent Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board contains a warning we should all pay great heed
to. It warns that--quote--``the technical basis for DOE's repository
design is weak to moderate at this time.''
Think about that. We are being asked to overturn a Governor's veto--
and risk public health and safety--by approving a plan of ``weak to
moderate'' technical design. That is an extraordinary position for the
administration to take.
The General Accounting Office, Congress's independent watchdog
agency, has also raised serious questions about Yucca Mountain. Eight
months ago, the GAO released a report that questioned Secretary
Abraham's recommendation to the President to move ahead on Yucca
Mountain despite the--quote--``significant amount of work remaining to
be done'' on the safety and feasibility of the project. The GAO report
noted that more than 200 unresolved technical issues identified by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission remain unanswered. It pointed out that
even the Department of Energy's own contractor doesn't think those
issues will be resolved in time to meet the 2010 deadline. In fact, it
will probably be years before we know definitively whether it is safe
to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
So why are we having this vote today?
We are being forced to decide this issue prematurely--without
sufficient scientific information--because this administration is doing
the bidding of special interests that simply want to make the deadly
waste they have generated somebody else's problem.
That is wrong. We ought to make this decision on the basis of sound
science, not pressure from the energy industry.
Two weeks ago, a mild earthquake shook Yucca Mountain. What would
happen to nuclear waste buried beneath Yucca Mountain when the next
earthquake hits? And we know there will be another. Will the
radioactive waste leak? Will it contaminate the soil? The groundwater?
We don't know.
The decision we make will have consequences that will last for tens
of thousands of years. We owe it to the American people--and to future
generations of Americans who haven't been born yet--to wait until we
have real answers. Yucca Mountain is less than 75 miles from Las Vegas,
the fastest-growing metro area in the country.
But it is not just Nevadans who are potentially in harm's way.
Serious questions have also been raised not only about the safety of
burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, but also about the safety of
getting the toxic materials to Yucca Mountain.
We are talking about transporting roughly 70,000 metric tons of
deadly waste from nuclear facilities in 39 States across our Nation's
highways, railways, and waterways to Yucca Mountain. No one knows
exactly what routes the waste would take. But, based on the routes the
DOE used in its environmental impact statement, there are 14,500
schools and 38 million people within 1 mile of a proposed nuclear waste
transfer route.
This is extremely dangerous material: High-level radioactive waste.
According to the non-partisan Environmental Working Group: Each rail
cask carrying nuclear waste, for instance, contains 240 times as much
long-lived radiation as was released by the Hiroshima bomb. A person
standing 3 feet from an unshielded nuclear waste cask will receive a
lethal dose of radiation in 2 minutes.
The administration has warned us repeatedly that terrorists may
hijack trucks and strike at trains. We also know that there are
security problems with many of our ports. By shipping nuclear waste on
trucks and trains and barges, we may very well be creating hundreds,
even thousands, of rolling ``dirty'' bombs. What sense does that make?
Even if we are fortunate enough to avoid terrorist attacks on
shipments of radioactive waste bound for Yucca Mountain, there is a
serious risk of accidents in transit, which would put Americans at risk
of exposure to high-level radioactive waste as well. Almost a year ago
exactly, a train derailment in a Maryland incident caused a tunnel fire
that burned for days. Temperatures in that tunnel exceeded 1,000
degrees.
How much radiation would have been released to the environment had
nuclear waste been on that train? How many people might have died?
There is so much we don't know about this ill-conceived project. But
there is one thing we do know: Contrary to what the special interests
claim, even if the Senate votes today to override Governor Guinn's
veto, creating a national nuclear dump in Nevada will not solve
America's nuclear waste storage problem. That is because the site isn't
big enough. America produces far more nuclear waste than can be buried
at Yucca Mountain. So beware if you are thinking of voting for this
proposal. This time, the nuclear waste may be passing through your
State. Next time, your State may be where the special interests want to
bury their radioactive trash.
If we let them do it this time--without sufficient scientific proof
that it is safe--think how much easier it will be the next time.
During his campaign, President Bush promised Americans that if he
were elected, he would support regulations

[[Page S6487]]

requiring energy companies to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide,
a compound that nearly all scientists agree is causing global warming.
When the time came to follow through on that promise, the President
reneged.
At a stop in Las Vegas during the campaign, Vice President Cheney
said a Bush administration would not muscle this project through. He
promised that the final decision would be based on sound science. Now,
at the urging of the energy industry, the administration has reneged on
that promise, too. They are pushing us to make this decision
prematurely, at grave potential risk to this Nation.
There is no reason we have to make a final decision today. Scientists
at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have assured us that the nuclear
waste can stay where is it for 100 years--safe in dry cask storage--
without posing any additional risk to public health and safety. It is
premature, dangerous, and reckless to force a vote on this question
today. We have more than enough time to make an informed, responsible
decision about Yucca Mountain. The question is: Will we have the
courage to take that time?
For the sake of all Americans--including those who will be born
generations from now--I hope the answer is yes.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposal. We risk no harm
by waiting for the scientists to finish their work. We risk
catastrophic harm by refusing to wait.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time
remains on each side at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has no time remaining.
The Senator from Nevada has 27\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will use my leader time. I realize
Senators are expecting to vote on or around 6 o'clock. I hope we will
be able to do that.
In that vein, I will not speak too long, but I have to rise to urge
my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed. That is the vote.
That will be the only vote today. This is not something that is new.
This is not a proposal that we are rushing into. In fact, the entire
time I have been in the Senate, and 6 years when I was in the House,
this process has been under way. It is 20 years that this has been in
the making. Nobody is being surprised. Nobody is being rammed. There
are not going to be any dangers.
This is a part of a very long, thoughtful process based on science.
Twenty years and $8 billion have already been expended. This is
something we must do. Nuclear power is an important part of our overall
energy needs. It provides clean, efficient power. We need to include
that in our diverse package of power production.
I am still dumbfounded to hear people express concerns about how it
can be moved, how it can be stored. Senator Murkowski and a bipartisan
delegation took a look 10 years ago at how Sweden, France, and the
Japanese have dealt with this problem. Yet in America we have not been
able to come to grips with our future needs and how we are going to
deal with the problem.
We should not overexaggerate what this decision today will do. The
Senate today will decide very simply whether to permit the Secretary of
Energy to apply for a license to operate a repository at Yucca
Mountain. It is not the end of the process. It is the very beginning. I
know from experience we are going to look at this issue every year,
congressionally, as we should, because funds will have to be used as we
go through the process. Senators from across the country are going to
want to know what is happening, how it is going. This is just to begin
the important part of the process.
We should not abandon all these years of effort. That is what would
happen. If we don't pass this motion to proceed, vote yes on it, I
don't know how we go forward. We will have wasted years and billions of
dollars in research and effort.
In addition, there is a tremendous problem with the exposure the
Government would have as a result. If we don't go forward, our Federal
Government could face billions of dollars in liability for breach of
contractual obligations. Remember this: If we don't proceed, a lot of
companies are going to start entering into private contracts. They will
start making arrangements for other types of repositories, probably not
as safe, not as well thought out, not based on as much science, and
also still having to be moved. When you look at various States and
where their nuclear waste is and its condition, you see that something
is going to happen. Having a repository that we have studied so much
and that will be so secure is better than the alternative of the
liability to which we would be exposed and what then would begin to
happen all over the country.
We should not jeopardize our only realistic means of meeting global
climate concerns by cutting back 20 percent of clean electric power
that is supplied by these nuclear reactors. As a matter of fact, I am
hoping we will have some more nuclear reactors activated in the
Tennessee Valley Authority region.

Clearly, there is a way that could be done, and there are some nearly
completed reactors that could be put back on line. It would help us
with our energy needs as we move toward an ever growing economy. If you
are going to have economic growth, you have to have power. I have just
visited some other countries that have seen real growth, and one of the
concerns they have--a country such as Ireland--is that growth. They
have new companies, but they are struggling to keep up with meeting the
power needs that go with the economic growth.
If we don't proceed, do we go back to the beginning? Do we debate
again the repository siting and reexamine all the feasibilities of
other sites such as the Hanford Reservation or the Michigan Peninsula.
Where would it be? What would we do?
Also, we would have to consider existing Federal reservations such as
Hanford and Savannah River. The complications that would be caused and
the irresponsible consequences of not agreeing to the motion to proceed
today are almost incomprehensible.
There has been a lot of discussion about transportation, moving this
waste around the country. How can we deal with it? Certainly, getting
this waste moved to a single repository where we could have very strong
security is much better than what we have now with all of these sites
in 39 States that are sitting there reaching their limits and exposed.
It would be much easier certainly to guarantee the security in a single
place.
I have also taken the time to look at how this transportation is
handled. These moving devices are very secure. You wouldn't believe all
the effort that goes into making sure they won't be exposed to any kind
of accident. To my knowledge, there has never been one that has caused
a problem.
When you look at what we have done to paint this dire picture of what
might happen, the truth is, the picture of what will happen if we don't
take this action now, after all this time, all this money, all this
effort, all this science--I don't know where we go from here. It all
boils down to this vote for 39 States, including my State. If not now,
when in the world are we going to do it? And if not in this way, if not
in this place, where? There are a lot of Senators who would have to
begin to be very nervous about a whole reevaluation process and what it
would mean to their sites.
I understand the Senators from Nevada. They have made a valiant
effort. They feel so strongly about it. I understand that. But I think
the Senate is committed to working with them to make sure that as we
move forward, it is based on good science and also that we do it in the
most secure fashion.
Let me again urge that we vote yes and that we do it within the next
few minutes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Nevada talked about
courage. I yield 5 minutes to one of the most courageous legislators we
have had. She showed that courage in the House of Representatives and
now in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the
motion

[[Page S6488]]

to proceed to the Yucca Mountain resolution authorizing DOE to move
forward with the siting of a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.
Washington State is home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the most
contaminated site in this country. My constituents have a very keen
interest in the development of a comprehensive, scientifically-driven
national nuclear waste policy. Unfortunately, I don't believe this
proposal, the Yucca Mountain policy, represents the needs of Washington
State. As far as I can tell, it is neither a comprehensive solution to
the fact that we have 54 million gallons of tank waste now stored at
Hanford, nor was the decision to recommend the site at Yucca Mountain
driven by a preponderance of scientific evidence.
This proposal, as billed, is supposed to be a long-term,
comprehensive solution for our nation's nuclear waste, yet it would
leave as much as 87 percent of the high-level nuclear tank waste in my
State. That is right. Under the Department of Energy's plan, as
outlined in its Environmental Impact Statement, only 13 percent of the
waste from Washington State's underground tanks would move to Yucca
Mountain. Only 19 percent of all of Hanford's defense-related waste
would move. And that's to say nothing about the increase in the total
amount of commercial nuclear waste within our borders.
There are capacity issues, as is admitted in the EIS. Yucca Mountain
will, by statute, only be able to take up to 70,000 metric tons of
heavy metal. And by the time the Yucca Mountain proposed site is open,
Washington State will already have 150-percent more commercial nuclear
waste than we have today. So where is the waste in Washington State
going to go?
The Seattle PI recently ran an editorial, ``Yucca Mountain Must Meet
Rigorous Standards,'' that talked about how we had created a monster in
the amount of nuclear waste in this country and asked what we are going
to do about it. I ask unanimous consent to print that in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 8, 2002]

Yucca Mountain Must Meet Rigorous Standards

This country, in this century, has created a monster that
likely will live for hundreds of thousands of years. Long,
long after we are gone, Americans will look back at the
summer of 2002 to see how carefully we tamed the monster.
So imagine the pressure on the U.S. Senate this week as it
must decide whether to declare Yucca Mountain in Nevada the
permanent repository for this nation's most dangerous nuclear
waste.
Maybe Yucca Mountain should become the final resting place
for this radioactive Frankenstein. But Americans, and
especially citizens of Washington state, should be very sure
that the site meets the highest standards for effectiveness
and safety before it is officially designated.
Washington state's Hanford Nuclear Reservation, remember,
was very close to being chosen for this ugliest of
graveyards. We didn't want it any more than the citizens of
Nevada do.
Washington state has done its share for the country in
producing and enduring these dangerous wastes and waiting for
bureaucrats and politicians to recognize the environmental
threat with which we've been saddled.
Washington was able to escape doing even more to rid the
world of the nuclear-waste monster.
So this state cannt be party to sacrificing the health of
Nevada and its residents because we want to get rid of the
wastes piled up within our borders.
We owe Nevada--even more, probably, than other states do.
Washington doesn't necessarily need to join Nevada in
opposing the respository. But we and our congressional
delegation should be involved. We should insist that the
Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make certain that this
repository is as safe as we would want it to be if the waste
were coming to Hanford.
The repository is supposed to separate high-level nuclear
waste from the human race for 10 centuries.
We've spent $7 billion studying Yucca Mountain, and for
several years, it's been the only place under consideration.
This has put a lot of heat on the EPA, DOE and the NCR to
lower or change standards to make sure the Nevada site makes
the grade.
That just adds to the need for the Senate to be cautious
about signing on to this plan. It can't be Yucca Mountain for
the sake of getting something--anything--done about nuclear
waste. Expedient is not good enough when the decision will
have consequences for thousands and thousands of years.
There can be no certainty when the timeline is unimaginably
long and the material unimaginably ugly.

Ms. CANTWELL. So why doesn't the ``trust us'' answer work for us when
it comes to nuclear waste--when it comes to trusting the Department of
Energy? Washington State has had to fight and battle hard. By some
estimates, we have already spent some $35 billion on Hanford cleanup--
without producing a single log of vitrified waste from those
underground tanks that are leaking in my State. We will also spend
another $50 billion, according to estimates, to finish the job, and we
are banking on the development of new technologies that have never been
used in projects of this magnitude. Meanwhile, we are spending an
average of about $5.1 million per day on this effort.
Since starting this project, we have had lots of stops and starts. In
1958, we tried converting our nuclear tank waste to ceramic forms. We
tried again later in the 1980s, to turn the tank waste into grout. That
plan didn't work, and it was abandoned.
Then, in 1998, DOE tried to privatize the construction of the
vitrification plant. That didn't work either. After a series of cost
overruns, DOE fired the contractor and we moved on to the next phase.
So we in Washington State know how hard this process can be. That is
why we have a tri-party agreement with the Federal Government and our
State agencies to make sure the Department of Energy lives up to its
responsibilities. But these are complex problems. So the fact that DOE
hasn't answered all the questions about Yucca Mountain on the technical
side and on the environmental side before proceeding puts a question in
my mind: Why do we have to execute today? Why do we have to move
forward today?
Even the GAO, in its recent report, says that there was no way that
the questions left to be answered at Yucca can be answered in the
timeframe that the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act envisioned So,
basically, we are saying we will approve this site without conclusively
addressing some 293, I believe, different technical questions that are
still out there.
As the GAO stated in its December 2001 report:

On the basis of information we reviewed, DOE will not be
able to submit an acceptable application to the NRC within
the express statutory time frames . . .
The GAO also criticized the lack of reliable cost estimates
for Yucca Mountain. How much will American taxpayers spend on
this proposal, with so many outstanding technical
uncertainties? No one really knows, but likely over $100
billion. That's why this proposal is opposed by so many
taxpayer groups.

Madam President, my State, more than any, wants a real solution to
our nation's nuclear waste problem. But more than anywhere else, my
State also knows that that these solutions must be based on sound
science and technology, and that the people deserve real answers and
not a plan that will do little to nothing for moving waste out of our
State. So when the DOE leaves so many questions unanswered and rushes
to judgment, I am skeptical.
To quote another article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, ``Cart
before horse at Yucca,'' it said:

Been there, heard those empty promises about sure-bet
technological fixes for the past 50 years. That approach
hasn't produced a disposal solution so far, and there's no
reason to rely on that failed strategy now.

We need more specific answers on every aspect of the Yucca Mountain
plan--on transportation, technology, and most importantly, from the
State of Washington: Where is the rest of the 87 percent of our tank
waste going to go? The Yucca Mountain proposal fails to provide that
answer.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Missouri, Senator
Carnahan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, for the Record, I want to correct the
statement made earlier regarding the shipment of nuclear waste or spent
fuel through Missouri.
The Senator from Alaska stated that ``there is no proposed existing
transportation route that will be taking the

[[Page S6489]]

waste through Missouri.'' He also said that ``there is no logic to
suggest that there would be movement of waste through the State of
Missouri.'' These are simply untrue statements.
In fact, a shipment of foreign research reactor spent fuel was
shipped through Missouri on I-70 in June 2001. The Department of Energy
has three highway routes selected for cross-country shipments of this
spent fuel that we take back from foreign countries.
I have the map right here. I got it from the Department of Energy.
Two of the three routes go directly across Missouri. This map--not the
one used on the floor by the Senator from Alaska--is a much better
predictor for the potential routes for the spent fuel that will be
shipped cross-country to Yucca Mountain because it is currently used
for very similar nuclear waste.
These are the facts. I wanted the Record to be clear for the people
of Missouri.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Nevada
have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I know there are people in the audience
all around here who are being paid lots of money. They are coming here
to see what is going to happen. They are being paid lots of money. They
drive here in limousines and have Gucci shoes and nice suits. It is
interesting to know that in the places where they work, Washington and
New York, they have editorials supporting this bad situation, trying to
ship Yucca Mountain waste on our highways, railways, and our waterways.
In this morning's paper, it says the Senate should pass the Yucca
Mountain bill now. This is part of the unending stream of money. That
is what this is all about--money, lots of money; money to run newspaper
ads; unlimited vacations to Las Vegas to look at Yucca Mountain for 2
hours and spend three days being wined and dined in Las Vegas;
unlimited dollars to send representatives to Capitol Hill.
I know how this works. The State of Nevada had a few dollars and we
wanted to hire a lobbyist, but we could not find one. They were all
hired by the Nuclear Energy Institute. We could not hire them. They had
conflicts of interest. So all you people here, just bill everybody,
feel good about it; you are perpetrating a travesty on the people of
this country.
We know that the information in this ad from the Washington Post are
myths. The law requires Senate action. That is not true, as has been
indicated by the majority leader and everybody else. It is not true.
The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said less than a
month ago that if it didn't go forward now, no big deal, it is safe
where it is.
Well, this argument that Yucca needs to happen is a big crock of
potato soup. The fact of the matter is that the General Accounting
Office said there is 292 scientific investigative reports that are not
completed.
Those independent scientists and analysts include the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, General Accounting Office, a former NRC
commissioner, and other independent scientists.
Let's look at some of the myths of this ad:
It is right for the environment.
Now, that is a joke. It is right for the environment? Every
environmental group in America opposes Yucca Mountain. There's your
answer. The transportation of it scares them. The Senator from Oklahoma
came and said ``why are they scaring people?'' Let's think about this a
minute. The proposed route that goes through Oklahoma was just the
scene of a horrible accident, where a barge hit a bridge and 23 cars
were knocked into the water and it killed 13 people.
I don't think that is scaring people. I think it is a scary fact. So
it is good for the environment? That has to be a big laugh. Every
environmental group in America opposes this. ``It has bipartisan
support''? The PTA, the national Parent Teachers Association, opposes
this. The National Education Association and the Farm Bureau, because
of the water situation, oppose this, along with the U.S. Conference of
Mayors. As is already in the Record from the Senator from California,
hundreds of environmental groups and other organizations in America
oppose this.
It is right for the environment? Afraid not. ``It is right for
consumers''? Joan Claybrook, who spent hours out in the reception room
earlier today, is the epitome of what consumers are about in America,
and her group opposes it.
Right for consumers? If this boondoggle goes through, it will cost
the American taxpayers approximately $100 billion. The Department of
Energy itself acknowledges they will spend $69 billion, but they low-
ball everything and come back to Congress for more money. How can that
be right for hard-working American families.
``It is time for action''? Afraid not. But this is the Gucci crowd.
They paid for this. They do it in New York and in Washington where they
get the good editorials. They don't get the good editorials in other
places because they have not been able to weave their web of money.
That is what this is all about. As the Senator from California
indicated today, 261 groups make up the Nuclear Energy Institute. These
are the same groups that our Vice President met with secretly. Now he
won't tell us anything about those meetings.
Let's see what USA Today said. They said there is no good reason to
move forward with this project. The view is best summarized by comments
of the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission where he said:

If Yucca Mountain was to fail because of congressional
action, it does not mean from a policy point of view the
country is at a stalemate and confronting imminent disaster.
We do have the capacity to store the material safely for
decades.
There has been talk today on several occasions that these
sites are filling up; as a result, we are going to have to
move to unregulated private storage facilities. That's
another lie, because these private facilities still have to
be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I repeat, outside of Washington and New York, people realize how
flawed this is. It certainly is the wrong way to go.
The Department of Energy has been saying we need to have Yucca
Mountain to consolidate all the waste that is sitting in existing
nuclear facilities. If there were ever a big lie, that is it. I have
had Senators who support this come here all day today saying: What we
need is one site. That is what this is all about. Every State one looks
at, we will find they do not gain anything. None of them are getting
rid of nuclear waste.
We can run through all these places across America. When it is all
over, Browns Ferry in Alabama will have 107 percent of the nuclear
waste they have right now, and we can go on down the list; 168 percent
in Pennsylvania; 140 percent in South Carolina. There is one that is
306 percent. That is in Virginia. There is one here for 380 percent.
They will have 380 percent more nuclear waste than when they started.
This is the big lie, that they are going to get rid of the nuclear
waste all around the country and have one place where there is nuclear
waste. That is simply not true. It will not happen. They are going to
wind up with more nuclear waste.
A simple statement of fact: They can move at the most 3,000 tons a
year. They will generate more than 2,000 tons a year, and they have
46,000 tons stored, and Yucca can only hold 77,000 tons. It does not
take a mathematician to figure out that we are not going to get rid of
the nuclear waste stored where it is.
Some of my colleagues have said the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board really has not said how bad this is. They have said it as clearly
as one can. An important conclusion in the board's January letter is:

When DOE's technical and scientific work is taken as a
whole the Board's view is that the technical basis for the
DOE's repository performance is weak to moderate. . . .

They go on to say:

While no individual technical or scientific factor has been
identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain
from consideration at this point, the Board has limited
confidence generated by DOE's performance market.

We are in the midst of a crisis in this country. The stock market has
plummeted. People have lost confidence in corporate America. Today, we
should be working to fix those problems, not create another disaster
for the American people to help out big corporations. That is what this
is about. Corporate America is driving this decision.

[[Page S6490]]

That is really too bad, Madam President. It is really too bad.

I extend my appreciation publicly to my friend from Nevada. Senator
Ensign has worked very hard on this. He has done good work. Senator
Ensign has done an outstanding job talking with every member of the
minority. I am very happy with the work he has done. I publicly
congratulate him for the work he has done.
I have been tremendously impressed with the fact he has not in any
way backed off, even though some say it is unpopular for him to oppose
the President of the United States.
Let me read a poem by Robert Frost to close this debate:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bend in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Madam President, Senators are being called upon to take that less
traveled road because it is going to make a difference.
Yucca Mountain is a bad project. We cannot transport nuclear waste
safely. We know that. Nuclear waste is subject to terrorist attack. We
are talking about tens of thousands of truckloads and thousands and
thousands of trainloads, and now they told us they are going to move
waste on barges. This is a road that should not be traveled, even
though some people want to go down that road.
I say let's take the road that makes all the difference. It is the
right thing to do.
In the years to come, as indicated in the Seattle Post Intelligencer,
people are going to ask: Why did they do that? There is no reason to do
it. Chairman Meserve has said:

If Yucca Mountain were to fail because of congressional
action, that does not mean all of a sudden from a policy
point of view that the country is at a stalemate and is
confronting imminent disaster.

That is true. But corporate interests are pushing this. In fact, we
should be talking about legislation to address these problems with
corporate American right now. We should be working a bill reduce the
power of corporate America with which this administration has been in
bed. The only person who could have stopped this corporate abuse today,
it appears, is the President of the United States. He misled the people
of Nevada. That is the reason he is President of the United States, I
am sorry to say. If he told the truth about Yucca Mountain, he would
not be President. He would have lost by four electoral votes and would
have lost the Presidency of the United States.

I say to my friend, the ranking member of the committee, Senator
Murkowski, he and I have had a lot of battles on the Senate floor. I
have the greatest respect for him. He has been a gentleman and always
fair to me, and although we disagree on policy issues, I cannot say
enough about him being the type of legislator I think we should have.
I urge my colleagues one more time to take the road less travelled
and protect people in the country, their states and Nevada.
I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. REID. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed to S.J. Res. 34. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--39

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Lieberman
Mikulski
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion is not in order.
Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of H.J. Res 87, which the clerk will report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) approving the site at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository
for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent
nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will read
H.J. Res 87 for the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question occurs on passage of the resolution.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) was passed.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent S.J. Res. 34 be returned to the
calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am concerned that many geological and
technical questions associated with the Yucca Mountain plan have yet to
be answered. We must ensure the safe keeping of this waste material for
10,000 years--a period of time longer than the written history of
mankind. Therefore, there must be certainty that the Yucca Mountain
site ensures protection of the environment and the safety of citizens.
At this point, such certainty does not exist.
What we do not yet know about Yucca Mountain and its suitability as a
long-term repository gives me great concern. For instance, how safe is
it to house such a great volume of nuclear waste at a site that lies
along a natural fault line? Can a facility be built to withstand a
major earthquake? There have not been sufficient answers to these and
other questions. Many scientific studies have reached the same
conclusion, namely that more research is needed before moving forward
with the Yucca Mountain site. Despite the incomplete scientific study
of Yucca Mountain and the state of Nevada's steadfast opposition to the
project, the nuclear energy industry and other parties are said to have
pressured the Secretary of Energy to recommend that Yucca Mountain is a
suitable site for the repository.

[[Page S6491]]

If Yucca Mountain is designated the primary repository for high-level
nuclear waste, transportation of this hazardous material throughout the
country will increase significantly. However, to date, the Department
of Energy has not decided upon any plan on how to move this material to
the repository. It is another in a long line of uncertainty surrounding
the Yucca Mountain proposal. How will the material be moved? By train?
By barge? By truck? What kind of security will be involved? There is
not a single answer to any of these questions. Congress needs those
answers before signing off on this plan.
We need a long-term solution to the problem of securing nuclear
waste, and Yucca Mountain may ultimately prove to be a scientifically
sound solution. But before we make a final decision on a repository
which must have a 10,000-year life span, we must have absolute
certainty of the suitability of Yucca Mountain. The safety of citizens
for thousands of years to come depends on our prudence and careful
deliberation.
With these concerns in mind, I voted against this proposal.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me recognize the action by the
Senate and thank those who participated in the debate, and Senator
Reid, Senator Ensign. I certainly understand and appreciate the
position they have taken. I thought the discussion and presentation
throughout the debate was certainly evidence of their concern for the
State of Nevada.
On the other hand, this has been with us for a long time, 20 years. I
think the Senate has acted responsibly today.
Let me thank certain staff members who have done a great deal of
work. I will be very brief: Colleen Deegan, Jennifer Owen, Brian
Malnak, Josh Bowlen, Macy Bell, Jim Beirne, our chart man, Joe
Brenckle; and on the majority: Sam Fowler, Bob Simon, and of course
Senator Bingaman.
Many others worked so diligently. We want to thank those in the
industry who assisted in bringing this matter to the attention of all
Members, encouraging that we act in a prudent manner, with dispatch. I
most appreciate the two leaders who are recognizing that we can take
the time today to dispose of this matter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the will of the Senate?
Mr. SARBANES. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

____________________