[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13574-S13575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Bennett, and Mr. 
        Hatch):
  S. 2099. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to 
require commercial nuclear utilities to transfer spent nuclear fuel 
from spent nuclear fuel pools into spent nuclear fuel dry casks and 
convey to the Secretary of Energy title to all spent nuclear fuel thus 
safely stored; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today for Senator Ensign, Senator 
Bennett and myself to introduce a bill to increase the safety and 
security of our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure, The Spent 
Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005.
  I am convinced that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump 
will never be built because of the myriad of scientific, safety and 
technical problems in which it is mired. It simply is neither safe nor 
secure, as illustrated by several significant scientific, legal, and 
budgetary setbacks this past year.
  Here are some of the highlights: On July 9, 2004, the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals sided with the people of Nevada in a lawsuit to stop 
the proposed Yucca Mountain project. The court decided that U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's radiation standard for the site was 
not stringent enough to protect the public from the significant risks 
associated with nuclear waste and failed to follow the recommendation 
by the National Academy of Sciences.
  On August 31, 2004, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board rejected Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain 
document database, saying it had failed to make public many of the 
documents that it had in its possession. The Board said, ``Given the 15 
years that DOE had to gather, review, and produce its documents and the 
fact that the date of production, and the incompleteness of its 
privilege review, it is clear to us that DOE did not meet its 
obligation, in good faith, to make all reasonable efforts to make all 
documentary materials available.''
  On October 4, 2004, the DOE Inspector General found that DOE has 
given away more than $500,000 worth of Yucca Mountain construction 
equipment in 2003. Half a million dollars is a tremendous amount of the 
people's money to waste.
  On November 22, 2004, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board said 
DOE does not have a plan for safely transporting nuclear waste to the 
proposed repository.
  On February 7, 2005, Dr. Margaret Chu, most recently the Director of 
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the project 
would be delayed until 2012 and that DOE's license application to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission would not be filed until December 2005, 
delayed a year. To date, the license application still has not been 
filed.
  On February 8, 2005, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have 
called for hearings to review concerns over the corrosion of the 
titanium drip shields that are intended to keep water from leaking into 
casks inside Yucca Mountain.
  On February 28, 2005, a DOE official said the proposed Yucca Mountain 
repository may not open until 2015.
  On March 16, 2005, DOE revealed that documents and models about water 
infiltration at Yucca Mountain, a key issue, had been falsified.
  On July 18, 2005, DOE announced that it will use dedicated train 
service for its rail transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
waste to Yucca Mountain, a shift from two decades of administration 
policy that ignores the fact that about one-third of reactor sites are 
not capable of shipping fuel by rail.
  On August 22, 2005, EPA published its revised radiation standards for 
the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste dump. These standards are 
wholly inadequate, do not meet the law's requirements and do not 
protect public health and safety.
  On October 13, 2005, DOE began a series of actions to overhaul the 
Yucca Mountain project. We are going back to the drawing board, 
frequently revisiting proposals discarded decades ago as unsafe or 
unworkable.
  On October 25, 2005, DOE announced that it would be redesigning the 
spent fuel storage process, both the containers and facilities.
  On November 16, 2005, the DOE Inspector General announced that DOE 
has ignored numerous admitted instances of falsification of technical 
and scientific date on the project, showing that years of quality 
assurance problems continue.
  On November 17, 2005, DOE sent a detailed letter to its contractor 
specifying some of the desired changes in the site proposal.
  At the December 7, 2005, at the NRC-DOE quarterly meeting on Yucca 
Mountain, DOE announced that it expects to re-baseline the project mid-
2006, requiring many of the technical and scientific analyses to be 
redone.
  On November 19, 2005, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill became 
law, cutting the Yucca Mountain budget to $577 million, half of what 
DOE said it would need to keep the project on track.
  In numerous media reports, DOE has confirmed that it is preparing a 
legislative package that addresses Yucca Mountain. Clearly, DOE cannot 
meet the current public health, safety and technical requirements.
  It should be clear to anyone that the proposed Yucca Mountain project 
is scientifically unsound and that it cannot meet the requirements of 
law. It is not going anywhere. Delay after delay costs the taxpayers 
billions and billions of dollars for a project that the courts have 
ruled does not meet sufficient safety or public health standards. I do 
not believe that Yucca Mountain will ever open, and Nevada and the 
country will be safer for our successful efforts to stop the project.
  Yet, we must safely store spent nuclear fuel.
  A 1979 study by the Sandia National Laboratory determined that, if 
all the water were to drain from a spent fuel pool, dense-packed spent 
fuel would likely heat up to the point where it would burst and then 
catch fire, releasing massive quantities of volatile radioactive 
fission products into the air. Both the short-term and the long-term 
contamination impacts of such an event could be significantly worse 
than those from Chernobyl. The consequences would be so severe and 
would affect such a large area that all precautions must be taken to 
preclude them. This is the type of serious, avoidable risk against 
which all the Nation's nuclear sites can and should be protected to 
counter terrorist threats.
  It is time to look at other nuclear waste alternatives. Fortunately, 
the technology to realize a viable, safe and secure alternative is 
readily available and can be fully implemented within 6 years if we act 
now. That technology is dry cask storage.
  The technology for long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel in dry 
storage casks has improved dramatically in the past 20 years. Seventeen 
cask designs have. been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
which says that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored using dry cask 
storage on-site at the nuclear power plants for at least 100 years. 
Already, dry casks safely store spent nuclear fuel at 34 sites 
throughout the country, many of them near communities, water ways and 
transportation routes. The Nuclear Energy Institute has projected 83 of 
the 103 active reactors will have dry storage by 2050.
  Compared to water-filled pools, dry storage casks are significantly 
less vulnerable to natural and human-induced disasters, including 
floods, tornadoes, temperature extremes, sabotage, and missile attacks. 
In addition, dry storage casks are not subject to drainage risks, 
whether intentional or accidental.
  On March 28, 2005, the Washington Post revealed that a classified 
National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the government does 
not fully understand the risks a terrorist attack

[[Page S13575]]

could pose to spent nuclear fuel pools and that it ought to expedite 
the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to 
attack.
  Our bill requires commercial nuclear utilities to safely transfer 
spent nuclear fuel from temporary storage in water-filled pools to 
secure storage in licensed, on-site dry cask storage facilities. After 
transferal, the Secretary of Energy will take title and full 
responsibility for the possession, stewardship, maintenance, and 
monitoring of all spent fuel thus safely stored. Finally, our bill 
establishes a grant program to compensate utilities for expenses 
associated with transferring the waste. The costs of transferring the 
waste and providing the grants will be offset by withdrawals from the 
utility-funded Nuclear Waste Fund.
  Nuclear facilities currently provide 20 percent of our Nation's 
electricity, but in light of the events of September 11, they also 
present a security risk that we simply must address. There cannot be 
any weak links in the chain of security of our Nation's nuclear power 
infrastructure. There is absolutely no justification for endangering 
the public by densely packing nuclear waste in vulnerable spent fuel 
pools when it can be stored safely and securely in dry casks. This bill 
guarantees all Americans that our Nation's nuclear waste will be stored 
in the safest way possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2099

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site 
     Storage Security Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.

       (a) In General.--Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982 (42 U.S.C. 10121 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

          ``Subtitle I--Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

     ``SEC. 185. DRY CASK STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Contractor.--The term `contractor' means a person 
     that holds a contract under section 302(a).
       ``(2) Spent nuclear fuel pool.--The term `spent nuclear 
     fuel pool' means a water-filled container in which spent 
     nuclear fuel rods are stored.
       ``(3) Spent nuclear fuel dry cask.--The term `spent nuclear 
     fuel dry cask' means the container, and all the components 
     and systems associated with the container, in which spent 
     nuclear fuel is stored at a Commission-licensed independent 
     spent fuel storage facility located at the power reactor 
     site. The design of any such spent nuclear fuel dry cask 
     shall be approved by the Commission.
       ``(b) Transfer of Spent Nuclear Fuel.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contractor shall transfer spent 
     nuclear fuel from spent nuclear fuel pools to spent nuclear 
     fuel dry casks at a Commission-licensed independent spent 
     fuel storage facility located at the power reactor site.
       ``(2) Spent nuclear fuel stored as of date of enactment.--A 
     contractor shall complete the transfer of all spent nuclear 
     fuel that is stored in spent nuclear fuel pools as of the 
     date of enactment of this subsection not later than 6 years 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) Spent nuclear fuel stored after date of enactment.--A 
     contractor shall complete the transfer of any spent nuclear 
     fuel that is stored in a spent nuclear fuel pool after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection not later than 6 years 
     after the date on which the spent nuclear fuel is discharged 
     from the reactor.
       ``(4) Inadequate funds.--If funds are not available to 
     complete a transfer under paragraph (2) or (3), the 
     contractor may apply to the Commission to extend the deadline 
     for the transfer to be completed.
       ``(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     compensate a contractor for expenses incurred in carrying out 
     subsection (b), including costs associated with--
       ``(1) licensing and construction of an independent spent 
     fuel storage facility located at the power reactor site;
       ``(2) construction and delivery of spent nuclear fuel dry 
     casks;
       ``(3) transfers of spent nuclear fuel;
       ``(4) documentation relating to the transfers;
       ``(5) security; and
       ``(6) hardening.
       ``(d) Conveyance of Title.--
       ``(1) Determination.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     transfer of spent nuclear fuel from a spent nuclear fuel pool 
     to a spent nuclear fuel dry cask, the Commission shall 
     determine whether the contractor carried out the transfer in 
     full compliance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Commission.
       ``(2) Noncompliance.--If the Commission determines that any 
     technical standard or compliance provision under the 
     regulations was not complied with, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) notify the contractor; and
       ``(B) take such actions as are necessary to obtain full 
     compliance.
       ``(3) Certification and conveyance of title.--When the 
     Commission determines that the contractor has fully complied 
     with the regulations--
       ``(A) the Commission shall certify that safe transfer has 
     been accomplished; and
       ``(B) the Secretary shall accept the conveyance of title to 
     the spent nuclear fuel dry cask (including the contents of 
     the cask) from the contractor.
       ``(4) Responsibility.--A conveyance of title under 
     paragraph (3)(B) shall confer on the Secretary full 
     responsibility (including financial responsibility) for the 
     possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of all 
     spent nuclear fuel transferred to the Secretary.''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 302(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) the provision of grants under section 185(d).''.

     SEC. 3. IMMEDIATE CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 
                   PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy shall accept the conveyance of 
     title to all spent nuclear fuel with respect to which, before 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission has certified that a contractor under section 302 
     of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222) has 
     completed transfer to spent nuclear fuel dry casks in 
     compliance with applicable regulations in effect as of the 
     date of transfer.
                                 ______