[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Page 23564]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          NUCLEAR TROJAN HORSE

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, physicians use a specially engineered 
radioactive molecule as sort of a nuclear Trojan horse in the battle 
against pancreatic cancer. The molecule is absorbed by the cancer cells 
and only by the cancer cells. Once inside, the radiation breaks up the 
DNA and kills the tumor cell--another amazing tool in the war on 
cancer.
  The physicians, technicians and even clean-up crews must carefully 
dispose of the medium that stored the radioactive molecule and other 
items that may have come in contact with the radioactive materials. 
There are strict procedures for disposing of such wastes by hospitals, 
universities, power plants and research facilities.
  But, in a way, that waste itself is a Trojan horse, sitting 
innocently in garages or closets in sites all over the country, waiting 
to be opened up and released on the public by an act of terrorism or of 
nature like the recent floods the East sustained, or the earthquakes 
and wildfires more common to the West coast. Most dangerous would be 
fire which would put the radioactive materials into smoke that could be 
breathed by anyone near the fire.
  Why is this a problem? Because there are only three facilities in the 
entire country that safely can accept such low-level radioactive waste, 
LLRW: that is material contaminated as a result of medical and 
scientific research, nuclear power production, biotechnology and other 
industrial processes. In 1996, about 7,000 cubic meters of LLRW was 
produced in the nation.
  A study released by the General Accounting Office at the end of 
September 1999, holds out little hope for the construction of any new 
low-level radioactive waste disposal sites as envisioned under the Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 
1980. That legislation resulted from states lobbying through the 
National Governors' Association (NGA) to control and regulate LLRW 
disposal. An NGA task force, that included Governor Bill Clinton of 
Arkansas and was chaired by Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, 
recommended the states form special compacts to develop shared disposal 
facilities.
  The GAO study, which I requested, states, ``By the end of 1998, 
states, acting alone or in compacts, had collectively spent almost $600 
million attempting to develop new disposal facilities. However, none of 
these efforts have been successful. Only California successfully 
licensed a facility, but the federal government did not transfer to the 
state federal land on which the proposed site is located.''
  Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stopped the California 
facility at Ward Valley from ever becoming reality. National 
environmental groups and Hollywood activists made Ward Valley a 
rallying cry, claiming waste would seep through the desert to the water 
table and into the Colorado River. They claimed to believe this despite 
two complete environmental impact statements that found no significant 
environmental impacts associated with a disposal facility at Ward 
Valley in the Mojave Desert. Secretary Babbitt asked the National 
Academy of Science to convene an expert panel to determine whether the 
Colorado River was threatened, and said he would abide by their 
conclusions. In May 1995, the Academy scientists concluded that the 
Colorado River was not at risk. Yet, the property was never 
transferred.
  But the importance of this issue extends well beyond the borders of 
the State of California or the borders of its fellow compact members, 
Arizona, and North and South Dakota, which thought they had a deal with 
the federal government. The losers are all Americans who believe the 
President and the executive branch should uphold federal law, not 
ignore it and obstruct it for the sake of campaign contributions.
  The GAO states that several reasons are behind the rest of the states 
giving up on siting new waste disposal facilities. Public and political 
opposition is cited as the strongest prohibiting factor. Another reason 
is that, for the time being, states have access to a disposal facility 
at Barnwell in South Carolina, Richland in Washington State and 
Envirocare in Utah. A very positive reason cited is the reduction in 
the volume of low-level waste that is being generated, with waste 
management and treatment practices including compaction and 
incineration.
  However, the report cautions, ``Within 10 years, waste generators in 
the 41 states that do not have access to the Richland disposal facility 
may once again be without access to disposal capacity for much of their 
low-level radioactive wastes.'' Barnwell could decide to close or 
curtail access as early as 2000, and, at best, will only be open until 
2010. The Utah facility disposes of wastes that are only slightly 
contaminated with radioactivity and thus is not available for all 
storage.
  In ten years states will be searching for storage as well as 
disposal. That storage will be near every university, pharmaceutical 
company, hospital, research facility or nuclear power plant. It may be 
down the street from you or within your city limits. And we have the 
Clinton administration to thank for bringing the materials into our 
communities like a quiet Trojan horse instead of working with states to 
establish a secure waste facility. Let's hope nothing ever opens the 
belly of the beast accidentally.

                          ____________________