[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5935-S5936]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to clarify points
from the debate we had prior to moving off the DOE bill and the
specifics of the Graham amendment.
I know my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, is probably
somewhere still in the vicinity of the Senate. I, too, admire the
Senator from South Carolina on a variety of issues, particularly on
National Guard issues and some of the challenges we have had, both
coming from States that have been hard hit economically and challenged
with a large number of people participating in our efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This issue that he and I disagree on obviously is one of
utmost importance and certainly one that needs a lot of attention by
the Members of this body. We will get that time and attention when we
return to DOE after the recess.
I bring up a couple of points made that are the crux of my concern
about this legislation; that is, that section 3116 of the underlying
bill, the Defense authorization bill, attempts to reclassify high-level
nuclear waste into a low-level material and allow it to be disposed of
in a different way.
I object to that and I object to the process by which that
legislation was drafted. The Senate Armed Services Committee does not
have jurisdiction over the ability to reclassify waste. That is a
change to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act drafted in 1982. If the
Department of Energy wants to have that debate, then the Department of
Energy should come down here and have hearings before the appropriate
committees and discuss that issue. But to have such a major policy
change of 30 years' policy since 1982 and 50 years of science saying
this is what high-level nuclear waste is and one day changing it in the
DOD bill is beyond absurd. Obviously, that is why we have spent time
this afternoon talking about it.
The chairman of the committee asked me in a question whether that
committee has jurisdiction over the issue. I know that DOE many times
has tried with various environmental issues to have them go through the
Senate Armed Services Committee, environmental issues such as the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Endangered Species Act.
All of those, even though they are DOE issues, do not go through the
Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, the committee even said they
are not part of our issues. Those are environmental policies or
policies for other committees and referred to those specific
committees.
I read to my colleagues rule XXV earlier regarding what the
jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee is. It is specific
to the national interests that were necessary in creating nuclear fuel.
That was an offshoot of the reactors used in the development of
plutonium for our efforts in World War II and the cold war, but they do
not have the legislative oversight of the cleanup policy. That is the
prerogative of other committees, the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee.
To make my point, I took section 3116 of this bill, this section that
reclassifies waste, and introduced it today as my own legislation and
asked for a referral. If we took this section on reclassification now
as a stand-alone bill, let's see where it was referred to. That bill,
Senate bill 2457, by Senator Cantwell, was referred to the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. That proves my point, that this policy
change is not the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
and the Senate Armed Services Committee should not try, in a closed-
door session, in secrecy without having a public hearing, without
having a public debate, to change policy of this significant nature
which is not the jurisdiction of their committee.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
that was also sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and
ranking member asking them not to pass this legislation out of
committee, and that it was the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, May 5, 2004.
Hon. John W. Warner, Chairman,
Hon. Carl Levin, Ranking Democratic Member,
Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Warner and Senator Levin: I am writing to
urge you not to include language relating to the
reclassification of high-level radioactive defense wastes
proposed by Senator Graham of South Carolina in the defense
authorization bill.
For thirty years, it has been the policy of this nation
that the high-level radioactive defense wastes temporarily
stored in tanks at Savannah River and elsewhere would, in
time, be removed from those tanks and permanently disposed of
in new facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Enactment of Senator Graham's amendment would
abandon that policy and permit the Department of Energy, in
its discretion, to reclassify an unknown part of the tank
wastes as transuranic or low-level
[[Page S5936]]
waste and either leave it where it is or ship it to New
Mexico for disposal in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant as
transuranic waste, or to some other state for shallow land
burial as low-level waste.
In addition, Senator Graham's amendment would exempt the
Department's handling of these wastes from licensing and
regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Its
enactment would have profound consequences for the nation's
high-level nuclear waste policy, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. It would also interfere in litigation now pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
For all of these reasons, I urge you not to include
Senator Graham's amendment in the defense authorization bill.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bingaman.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am trying to make the point that the
ranking member of the committee, and now the parliamentarian, have
agreed that this is not the jurisdiction of this committee.
I ask my colleagues to weigh that in the time we have away from here,
to drop this policy as it relates to trying to reclassify waste without
having the proper public hearing and public comment about the issues.
Yes, everyone has heard of DOE attempts to try to reclassify this
waste. It is well known that they actually tried to do it by order
themselves and were shot down in court. They were shot down in court
because specifically they do not have the authority. They have to
change the definition under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If they want
to do that, debate it on the Hill, have this discussion, and move
forward.
I make a point that cleanup around America--whether it is in South
Carolina, in the Savannah River, or whether it is Washington State at
the Hanford reservation, whether it is Idaho or any other facility in
this country--should be continuing. There is nothing about any court
case or any court battle that prohibits the Department of Energy from
continuing with cleanup. I hope they understand that is the judgment
and the clarification of the court that ruled.
If my colleague from South Carolina is hearing that nuclear waste
cleanup may be going slow or may be put on hold in the future, that is
the absolute wrong message from the Department of Energy. Congress has
appropriated funds, has appropriated funds in the past, and they should
be going about their cleanup job.
What we are not going to do as a body is whitewash a change of
significant nature where we do not have science backing that says we
ought to reclassify this waste. In fact, science has been very specific
in saying this is not a simple proposition.
In 1990, the National Academy of Science said:
There is strong worldwide consensus that the best, and
safest, long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic
isolation.
Again, not grouting waste in existing tanks but removing the waste
and putting it in a geological isolation, as we have suggested, and
others have suggested, at Yucca Mountain.
A 1992 report by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory said:
The grouts will remain at elevated temperatures for many
years. The high temperatures expected during the first few
decades after disposal will increase the driving force for
water vapor transport away from the grouts; the loss of water
may result in cracking . . .
A 1992 study on this issue regarding just pouring cement and sand on
nuclear waste and somehow storing it and solidifying it in the ground
said there would be a result of cracking.
What we know in Washington State is we already had the cracking of
the tanks. We already had a plume of nuclear waste going toward the
river. So we already know what this situation is all about.
In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences said:
[W]aste tank residue is likely to be highly radioactive and
not taken up in the grout, so there is substantial
uncertainty. . . .
Another 2000 study by the National Academy of Sciences says:
[Using grout,] the ability of the site to reliably meet
long-term safety performance objectives remains uncertain.
I think there is much science that basically says we do not think
grout can work. Obviously, we do not know what the Department of Energy
is trying to do, because they want to leave an unspecified amount of
waste in the ground and not be specific about that. So it is very
difficult for us to see.
I would also like in my short time here, because I know each Member
is limited in time this evening, to refute the letter that was
submitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While we do not know
what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was asked to comment on, what
they ended up commenting on was not the underlying language in the DOD
authorizing bill. They did not comment on the fact that the Graham
language would significantly change the Nuclear Waste Power Act and
classify high-level waste as something else.
What they did comment on was the fact that you could take the entire
tanks out of the ground and it would be very expensive, which I do not
know if people can imagine, because the Hanford site is miles and miles
of acres--I think earlier we said something close to one-third the size
of the State of Rhode Island. That is how big the Hanford reservation
is--580 miles of land. These tanks that have stored the spent fuel are
enormous.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is saying: We do not know if it is
feasible to take out the tanks entirely. Well, no one ever said we
expected to take out the entire tanks. What we said was we think the
tanks have to be cleaned and the site has to be cleaned. And that is
the removal process we should continue to do.
So I think while we would be wise to get a letter from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that was specific about the exact proposal that
is in this bill and get their response, the issue is they are not in
charge of short-term waste disposal. They are in charge of this
geological isolation solution we in Congress and others have been
looking for, and basically asking questions about, and saying, Where
are you going to take the vitrified waste and put it? They are not the
regulatory entity over those short-term issues.
I think the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not fully addressed the
question. I think perhaps we should send them a more direct question to
which we can get a more specific answer.
We will hear a lot more about this issue when we return from the
legislative recess. But I assure my colleagues, we are going to
continue to talk about the fact that we in Congress cannot have this
significant a change in a policy by simply sneaking language into a
Senate Armed Services Committee bill that does not have jurisdiction
over this issue and make a major policy change that is 30 years of
law--30 years of established law--and 50 years of scientific evidence
and override that in a short period of time without a full discussion
and debate.
This underlying bill language needs to be stricken. We need to get
about the nuclear waste cleanup that the science says we should do;
that is, removing the high-level waste and not simply trying to do
cleanup on the quick by calling it grout.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________