[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1037-1053]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1287 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1287) to provide for the storage of spent 
     nuclear fuel pending completion of a nuclear waste 
     repository, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lott (for Murkowski) amendment No. 2808, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until 11 a.m. shall be controlled by 
the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, and the Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, or their designees.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are now in the final hour of 
discussion about this nuclear waste-related bill. I thought, since I do 
not see Senator Murkowski, the chairman of our committee, I would go 
ahead and make my statement indicating my position. I did speak 
yesterday on the Senate floor on this issue and laid out the reasons I 
will be voting against S. 1287 this morning. I encourage my colleagues 
to join me in voting against the bill. I do so for the simple reason 
that the bill as presently before us does not solve the problems of the 
nuclear waste program. In fact, it magnifies those problems.
  Let me go through some of the specifics.
  First, the bill does not reduce the liability that is borne by 
taxpayers for the program's failure. Instead of reducing that 
liability, this bill would increase that liability. The part of the 
bill that purports to offer the Department of Energy authority to 
settle lawsuits filed against it is arguably worse for the U.S. 
taxpayer than is current law. Other parts of the bill set new and 
arbitrary deadlines for the Department of Energy to ship nuclear waste

[[Page 1038]]

to Nevada. We know today that the Department of Energy cannot meet 
those deadlines, and a vote for this bill is a vote for a new wave of 
litigation. We are already enmeshed in a great deal of litigation. A 
vote for this bill will bring us even more litigation.
  Second, this bill does not speed up the decision of the Department of 
Energy on whether Yucca Mountain is suitable for a repository. In fact, 
the effect of the bill is to slow down that decision. By delaying the 
issuance of a radiation standard for Yucca Mountain by EPA, the bill 
would delay the process of finalizing whether Yucca Mountain will be a 
repository site.
  The third point I want to make is that this bill does not make new 
funds available to the nuclear waste program so we can do an effective 
job of investigating Yucca Mountain and building a repository. Instead 
of making those funds available, which we should be doing, to the 
contrary, this bill caps the amount of funds the Department of Energy 
can collect and shifts the burden of paying for nuclear waste disposal 
from the beneficiaries of that nuclear power--that is, the people who 
received electricity from it--to everyone else in the country.
  The fourth point I want to make is that the bill does not facilitate 
the movement of nuclear waste out of our individual States. In fact, 
this bill, as I read it, would impede the transportation of waste out 
of those States. Even if we managed to build a repository, if you are 
from a State that has nuclear waste, the bill contains an impossible 
hurdle to moving that waste out of your State. Read page 17 of the 
bill. You will find that no shipments of nuclear waste can occur 
anywhere until the Secretary of Energy has determined that emergency 
responders in every locality and every tribal entity along primary or 
alternative shipping routes for nuclear waste have met acceptable 
standards of training.
  Right in that single provision are the seeds of two huge lawsuits 
that will keep nuclear waste in your State forever: A lawsuit over what 
constitutes acceptable training and a lawsuit over the reasonableness 
of the required determination by the Secretary of Energy that every 
volunteer fire or ambulance company in every locality that might see 
nuclear waste at some point is adequately trained.
  Also, the requirements are vastly more restrictive on the Department 
of Energy than anything we have ever considered in the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant case.
  In my view, such a certification by a Cabinet officer is a practical 
impossibility, not to mention an unprecedented intrusion by the Federal 
Government into local government responsibilities.
  The fifth point is that this bill does not fix the problem of the one 
utility that is actually threatened by a shutdown of one of its plants 
because of the failings of the Department of Energy's nuclear waste 
program. I am speaking about the Northern States Power plant at Prairie 
Island. Nothing in this bill forestalls the shutdown of that plant 
which is expected in January of 2007.
  One of the most disappointing developments of the past few days has 
been the stripping from the bill of the major provision that did make 
this bill worth passing, in my view, even though some of the flaws I 
have described are still in the bill.
  The provision that was stripped was a provision giving the Department 
of Energy new authority and capability to resolve lawsuits that have 
been filed against it. We have been told this is what a group of seven 
Governors are insisting. They wanted us to drop this provision.
  I studied a copy of their purported letter on this subject, and I 
find it a very strange document. The copy I have been given is not 
dated, it carries no signatures, and it is not on any official 
letterhead. In fact, it carries a heading that suggests it is a draft 
document. The letter is not about this bill. It is about testimony 
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson gave about a year ago.
  Some of the reasons given in the draft letter for opposing take title 
do not apply to this legislation. One argument in the letter complains 
that nuclear waste might be stored on riverfronts or lakes or seashores 
where, of course, the reality is one finds nuclear waste stored today 
in powerplants.
  Specifically, an alternative to take title recommended in the letter 
is not contained in the bill on which we are about to vote, so the 
claim that by gutting this bill of its key provision --that is, its 
take title provision--we have satisfied seven Governors is certainly 
not supported by anything I have found in the document.
  The other curious thing about what we have done to the bill during 
the course of our deliberations this week when we removed this take 
title provision is that we have converted its statutory instructions to 
the Department of Energy for settling industry lawsuits into something 
we know the States themselves publicly oppose. Without take title, all 
the Department of Energy can do is use money from the nuclear waste 
fund to give monetary and in-kind compensation to the utilities. That 
is what section 105 of the bill now authorizes.
  Listen to what 51 State agencies from 35 different States told a 
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in January 1998 about 
this concept. This is a quote from their pleadings in that case:

       The Court should act decisively to bar DOE from using the 
     NWF [Nuclear Waste Fund] and ongoing fee payments to pay the 
     costs and damages resulting from its deliberate 
     noncompliance. Even the potential for DOE to consider such a 
     course should be immediately invalidated. . . .

  That is what the States said in 1998, and in this legislation we 
instruct the Secretary of Energy to do exactly what 35 States pleaded 
with the court not to allow the Department of Energy to do.
  The No. 1 remedy sought by the 35 States in this lawsuit, several 
pages after this statement, was a court order forbidding the Department 
of Energy from doing what section 105 of this bill now tells the 
Department of Energy to do. I am not making this statement based on 
some unsigned, undated document. We have a copy of the signed petition 
to the court here. I am glad to share that with any colleague who wants 
to review it between now and the time of our final vote.
  On that document, many of us will see the signature of our Attorney 
General, our respective attorneys general from the States, or our 
representatives from the public utility commissions in our States.
  The bottom line is this bill is not going to fix what is wrong with 
the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program. On the contrary, it 
will move us further from a final solution we need to achieve. We 
should not pass the legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting against it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes from our time to the Senator from 
Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his 
graciousness.
  I rise in support of the provisions of the manager's amendment that 
strikes the take title language from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
amendments. I express my great appreciation to the committee chairman, 
Senator Murkowski, for his willingness to work with us to address the 
concerns of a number of States, including my home State of Maine, about 
the take title provisions.
  Our States feared that the take title provisions would grant the 
Department of Energy a license to permanently store nuclear waste where 
it now sits--on the very vulnerable riverfronts, seashores, and lake 
borders of many States.
  The take title provision was a fatal flaw in this otherwise necessary 
and sound legislation. This provision was based upon an ill-advised 
effort by the Department of Energy to shirk its responsibilities to 
store nuclear waste.
  The take title provision would have allowed the Department of Energy 
to take ownership of the nuclear waste at each individual nuclear plant 
across the Nation. At first blush, that sounds

[[Page 1039]]

very reasonable, but we have to look at the record.
  Given the Department of Energy's dismal record of missed deadlines 
and its utter failure to deal with the nuclear waste issue, new waste 
storage facilities created under the take title provision would run the 
very real risk of becoming de facto permanent waste sites.
  Moreover, this administration has simply done a miserable job of 
allaying the fears of the Governor of my State and the people of many 
other States who all fear the take title provision is a ruse to create 
permanent repositories at each site.
  Residents of my State of Maine have been paying into the nuclear 
waste fund for years with assurances that the radioactive waste from 
the State of Maine and from Maine Yankee, in particular, would be moved 
to a permanent repository, not left in Wiscasset, ME, where the plant 
once operated. Since 1982, the ratepayers of Maine have paid nearly 
$150 million into the fund. Yet we have seen no progress, no results.
  What to do with our Nation's nuclear waste is, indeed, a difficult 
question, but creating semipermanent storage at over 100 facilities 
across the Nation is clearly not the answer.
  Similarly, allowing the Department of Energy to continue to dodge its 
responsibilities is not the answer. The answer is a safe, consolidated 
facility. The answer is for the Department of Energy to fulfill its 
obligations. The answer is for the Department of Energy to take 
possession of the waste, not just in Maine but by physically removing 
it from these sites across our country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment. I believe it 
will solve the problems with the take title provision and thus improve 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Wyoming 
for yielding.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I come to the floor for just a couple of moments to express my 
sincere regret that we have not been able to come together to resolve 
the outstanding differences that are represented today in the debate 
and will be represented in the final outcome of the vote.
  I give great credit to the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Bingaman, and to our colleagues, both from Alaska 
and Nevada, for the effort that has been made to try to reach some 
accommodation.
  Unfortunately, in part because of a lack of willingness on the part 
of some of our Republican colleagues to come to the middle, we have 
lost a golden opportunity to finally resolve this matter once and for 
all.
  The administration has indicated it will veto this bill in its 
current form. The EPA, the Secretary of Energy, and others, have 
expressed vehement opposition. Environmental groups, both liberal and 
conservative, the energy utility companies, oftentimes in favor of this 
legislation, in many cases today have come out in opposition to this 
bill, in part because of the failure to reach some compromise, and in 
part because this situation now makes their lives even more complicated 
and more difficult than it was before. Furthermore, there is deep 
concern that this bill undermines EPA's ability to protect the American 
public by delaying its authority to issue a radiation safety standard 
until 2001.
  Instead of streamlining the process of moving nuclear waste to 
Nevada, this bill has complicated it even more. And, it fails to 
relieve American taxpayers of the extraordinary liability they face due 
to the failure to establish a long-term storage site. As a result, we 
have no choice but to continue to oppose the legislation in its current 
form.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this bill. Maybe 
in conference we can work it out. If we can, maybe we can come to the 
floor at another date, with another opportunity to see if we cannot 
successfully resolve these outstanding problems. But today that has not 
happened.
  Today, Senator Bingaman and others have expressed their regret and 
their opposition. We simply cannot allow a bad bill to pass and be 
signed into law. This is the one opportunity we will have to do it 
right. We have to do it right before it is signed into law. The 
President has insisted on that. I think it is incumbent on us to insist 
on that. I think the American people expect no less.
  Mr. President, in just a short while we will have the opportunity to 
vote. It is my sincere hope that a large number of colleagues, on both 
sides of the aisle, will join us in saying: No. We have not done the 
job yet. Until we do it right, our vote will remain no.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield myself such time as I may utilize.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill. The time has come for 
the Congress and the Federal Government to step up to do something. 
This is not a new issue. It has been going on for a very long time. As 
a matter of fact, the basic legislation--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
of 1982--required the Federal Government to build a storage facility 
for spent fuel, to accept nuclear waste by 1998, to develop a 
transportation system, and that the cost would be paid for by the 
electric utility customers. The Department of Energy has not done this. 
The administration has not lived up to its part of it. They have been 
required to have a plan, but they have done very little.
  The Federal Government has accepted the more than $16 billion 
collected from utility customers to do this. It has not shown results. 
The customers, of course, have been hit more than once in terms of 
paying the higher rates.
  The time has sort of expired to continue to debate this issue, to 
continue to have opposition, which does not surprise me because there 
has not been many positive options coming from the other side of the 
aisle. All we have is resistance. All we have is: No, we are not going 
to do that.
  This year I had the chance to go down to the nuclear storage site in 
New Mexico. We have spent billions of dollars there. We have moved only 
a very small amount into that storage spot. Idaho has not been able to 
use that at all.
  Currently over 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel is being 
stored at 74 sites in 36 States. An additional 35,000 metric tons from 
weapons production and naval facilities increases the number of sites.
  I understand this legislation isn't what everybody would like to 
have, but the fact is that we need to do something. Passing this bill 
will start us moving in that direction. That is what we ought to do.
  The legislation drops interim storage, requires the Congress to 
approve increases in fees collected, sets a schedule for the 
development of a repository, authorizes backup storage for any spent 
fuels, and allows EPA to set radiation standards after June 1, 2001. It 
does a number of things on which we need to move further. It authorizes 
the settlement for outstanding litigation and sets an acceptance 
schedule for spent fuel. I know it is a difficult issue.
  I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senator Craig for all of their hard 
work. The Energy Committee, which has approached this several times, 
has done a number of things. Frankly, the time for delay is over.
  We are experiencing some of the same kind of resistance to doing 
something now in the INEEL situation in Idaho where we are looking very 
hard at some alternative to incineration.
  I have heard from the Vice President. He said he would look into it. 
I have heard from Mr. Frampton from the White House who said he would 
look into it. I have heard from the Secretary of Energy who promised to 
look into it, but nothing has happened.
  There is a limit to the amount of time we can continue to stall in 
making some decisions with regard to this nuclear issue.
  I urge support for this bill. I hope we can move forward with it 
today.

[[Page 1040]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Chair a good morning.
  I ask, how much time is remaining for the majority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 18\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. And for the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I note a Dear Colleague letter is 
circulating this morning from one of our colleagues from Montana and 
one of our colleagues from California. It concerns the critical 
environmental vote that will occur at 11 o'clock on the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act amendments.
  It identifies that the protection of the health and safety of 
American citizens should be our highest priority. I agree with that. It 
further states that in order to do this, all decisions must be made 
based on science, not politics. It suggests this legislation does not 
do that.
  I implore my colleagues, what we are attempting to do is use the best 
science available. That is why we brought the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and the National Science Academy into the recommending 
process for EPA. But I point out for the benefit of anyone who still 
has a doubt that the Environmental Protection Agency has the final 
authority on determining the radiation standards. But the effort is to 
get the best science.
  Let's be honest with one another. Every time this legislation comes 
up, it comes down to one thing: Nobody wants the waste.
  I have said time and again, if you throw it up in the air, it has to 
come down somewhere and that somewhere is Nevada. That decision was 
made some time ago. We have expended $6 billion in the Yucca Mountain 
effort.
  The criticism of this legislation to which this Dear Colleague letter 
points is it doesn't address an alternative. It is innuendo to say the 
legislation ``unnecessarily slows EPA's ability.'' It can't do anything 
until it is licensed. The ``legislation conveys undisclosed acreage of 
Federal land to Nye and Lincoln Counties in Nevada without providing 
any maps of the areas or conducting any hearings.'' That is simply not 
true.
  We are trying to accommodate the two affected counties in Nevada by 
giving them BLM-accessed land. What in the world is wrong with that? Is 
that contrary to the public health and safety? To me it is good for the 
people of Nevada. I am sure if you asked the two Senators from Nevada 
whether their constituents should receive this land, they would have a 
pretty positive opinion.
  What we have here are more smokescreens. We have a statement by the 
minority ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works saying they have the sole discretion over nonmilitary 
environmental regulations and control of atomic energy. Well, as 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we have the 
obligation to address the disposal of the nuclear waste. We have 
attempted to do that in a responsible manner.
  Yes, this is politics. This is hard core politics. It is trying to 
accommodate my good friends from Nevada over their objection to put the 
waste in their State. The Clinton administration, the administration of 
Vice President Gore, simply doesn't want to address it on their watch. 
That is all there is to it.
  Each Member who votes against this legislation better be prepared to 
go home and explain why they voted to keep the waste in their 
individual State, when we had a chance to move it out to one central 
location at Yucca Mountain. There it is, 80 sites in 40 States. We have 
a chance to move it to one location.
  The Northeast corridor State Governors said: We don't trust the 
Federal Government; they didn't take the waste in 1998 when it was 
contractually due; the ratepayers paid $15 billion; they broke the 
sanctity of a contractual relationship. What the Governors are saying 
is they don't want the waste stored in their State by the Federal 
Government taking title because they are convinced the Federal 
Government will leave it there. Well, they very well could be right.
  As a consequence, we have this waste stored in these States on the 
way to the schoolgrounds, the playgrounds, the hospitals, homes. We 
have it on the shores of the Great Lakes--Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, 
Lake Erie, Lake Superior, Lake Ontario--the great rivers--the 
Mississippi, the Colorado, the Columbia--the Nation's seashores. We 
must resolve to put it at a permanent site. That is all there is to it.
  We have a good bill. This is a responsible environmental vote. The 
environmental community has said, we are opposed to this legislation. 
What are they for? Are they for leaving the waste where it is? Well, 
they wouldn't respond to that question.
  Each Member of this body is elected to make a responsible decision 
and not be led by groups motivated by their own particular ideology. 
Make no mistake about it: A large segment of America's environmental 
community wants to kill the nuclear power industry. They want to kill 
the nuclear industry because they are opposed to it. But they don't 
look at the contribution that industry makes to clean air, and they do 
not address the responsibility of what the alternative is.
  So a responsible environmental vote is to move this from these 40 
States and 80 sites to one central location that is designed for it. 
Make no mistake about it: These temporary locations are not designed 
for it.
  There is criticism that this is some kind of a full blown attack by 
the nuclear power industry. What they are seeking is relief. They are 
seeking relief from the waste that has been generated over an extended 
period of time and the inability of the Federal Government to meet its 
contractual commitments. That should make every Member of this body 
indignant. But that is what happened. Do you know who is taking it in 
the shorts? The American taxpayer, because the claims against the 
Federal Government for not taking that waste under the contract are 
somewhere between $40 and $80 billion. That is about $1,400 per family 
every year in this country. Nobody seems to care about it. I care about 
it. I am sure you do, Mr. President.
  We have a good bill. It uses the WIPP transportation model. It is 
safe transport. The States decide the routes. Some of my colleagues are 
fearful it is going to be moved by rail. It is not going to be moved by 
rail. It is very doubtful. Rails don't go direct. A rail goes from one 
railyard to the next railyard. Oftentimes those railyards are around 
areas of high concentration of population. That doesn't make sense. The 
Governors are going to have control of where these routes are 
determined. They are going to be safe routes because we are going to 
have professionals out there determining the safeguards, the drivers, 
and so forth. In fact, we submitted a letter yesterday from the 
national Teamsters Union. They are concerned because they want trained 
people. Their trained people will be involved.
  Finally, EPA has the sole authority to set the radiation standard. 
Don't let anybody tell you differently. I love my friends from Nevada. 
I really do. I have a great deal of respect for them. I know where they 
are coming from. Do you know what they said in the hearing? They said, 
regardless of what the safeguards are, what assurances we have, we are 
not going to support a bill that would put the waste in Nevada. I 
understand that. So it means it doesn't make any difference what we do, 
what the minority does, what the Senator from California and the 
Senator from Montana do. We will never be able to convince them. I 
understand that. So let's recognize that for what it is.
  The Secretary may settle lawsuits and save the taxpayers this $80 
billion liability. This legislation allows early receipt of fuel, once 
construction is authorized, as early as 2006. The nuclear

[[Page 1041]]

waste fee can only be increased by Congress. It prevents unreasonable 
increases in the fees. We provide benefits to counties most affected by 
repository land conveyance of the 76,000 acres to Nye and Lincoln 
Counties. This is the land that Nevada wanted. Well, I wonder how bad 
they want it now.
  We struggled with this problem for many years. The time is right. S. 
1287 is the solution. Utility consumers have paid over $15 billion into 
that waste fund. We cannot jeopardize the health and safety of citizens 
across the country by leaving that spent nuclear fuel in 80 sites in 40 
States. That is irresponsible. We should move it once and for all where 
it belongs: at a remote site on the desert.
  I will show my colleagues that picture one more time, where we have 
had 800 nuclear tests over a period of 50 years. That is the site. We 
risk, if we can't get this legislation through, losing 20 percent of 
our clean generation. Where are we going to make it up? We can't 
jeopardize our economic and environmental future by ignoring the 
nuclear waste management issues. That is what we are going to do if 
this legislation is not supported. We risk losing 103 nuclear 
powerplants.
  I urge Members to vote for S. 1287 and finally put this problem 
behind us. And one more time, Mr. President--remember, each Member who 
votes against this bill is going to be obliged to explain why they 
voted to keep the waste in one of the 40 States that they come from 
when they had a chance to move it to one central location, Yucca 
Mountain.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be very brief.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the changes made 
in the take title provisions. I have discussed it with my Governor, and 
now I can say that we no longer have an objection to the bill. The 
Governor hopes it passes with the changes that were made. So I wanted 
to let everybody know that I am in favor of the bill, and I appreciate 
the changes that were made.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Bryan, the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  I hardly know where to begin because so much misinformation has been 
uttered about this piece of legislation. This is clearly a legislative 
vessel that is flying under false colors. There is absolutely nothing 
in this bill that says, look, it is going to be Yucca Mountain as 
opposed to anything else. That decision, in terms of studying it, has 
already been made. I regret that, but it doesn't alter the fact that 
only Yucca Mountain is being considered and that process goes forward. 
The bill has nothing to do with whether or not Yucca Mountain is going 
to be the site that is going to be considered and studied over the next 
few years, absolutely nothing. So vote against this bill.
  With respect to the compensation issue, we have agreed for more than 
a decade, and this Senator has personally offered legislation to 
compensate the utilities. That is not an issue. We agree. This bill 
would pass by unanimous consent if that was the only provision that was 
in there. This Senator would be among the first to say that is fair.
  What this is all about is trying to game the standards. That is what 
we are talking about. By and large, in its original form, this bill 
stripped out EPA. Now, games are still being played. Somehow it is 
suggested that EPA is being unreasonable. EPA has set a standard of 15 
millirems, the same one set at WIPP, the transuranic for nuclear waste. 
In 1982, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was enacted, Congress 
thought EPA ought to be the one to make that determination. Now, is it 
a fair, reasonable standard? Somehow this crazy myth has been spilled 
out all over the floor that this is an unreasonable standard. The 
National Academy of Sciences--and this is not a Nevada-based group; the 
``N'' stands for National, not Nevada--has looked at the standards and 
said, look, the range should be between 2 and 20 millirems, and it is 
15.
  Any Member of this Senate can defend a ``no'' vote on this 
legislation on the basis that Yucca Mountain is going forward in the 
study process. Nothing changes that. All we are saying is, in the 
interest of fairness, don't play politics with the standards. And that 
is what is occurring. All we are asking is that the health and safety 
of Nevada be accorded the same protection that the good citizens of New 
Mexico and every other place in America enjoy. So by moving this into 
the next year, they are trying to play politics. Do you know what. The 
very perverse result of all of this is that it is going to result in a 
further delay, and that would be as a result of this legislation being 
enacted.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me respond to a few of the points 
made in debate. The other Senator from Nevada also wishes to speak.
  First, when my good friend from Wyoming made his comments, he made a 
point that we hear a lot on the floor, which is that the people who are 
opposed to this bill have offered no alternatives. That is not true. I 
think anyone who has followed the course of this legislation in 
committee knows that I offered an alternative in committee, which got a 
significant number of votes, which I believe would have been a 
substantial step forward. On each of the issues we are debating, I have 
offered alternative language. So, clearly, that is not the case.
  Second, on the issue about the Department of Energy making no 
progress with the Yucca Mountain project, I don't think that is an 
accurate or fair criticism at this point. Clearly, they have not done 
all we wish had been done, but it is also true that Congress, most 
years, has not provided the funding requested for this project.
  The Department of Energy is on target to characterize the Yucca 
Mountain facility. Five miles of tunnel have been built in the last few 
years. Numerous test facilities have been built. Progress is being made 
but not adequate progress. I am sure they are unhappy with the pace of 
progress. Of course, this legislation contains a delay in the EPA's 
ability to issue their standards. The take title is perhaps the part 
that is most confusing because there seems to be an underlying belief 
on the part of some Senators who have spoken that if we provide this 
take title authority so that the Department of Energy can go in and 
take the title and settle these lawsuits that are pending, somehow or 
other that lessens the need for the Department of Energy to go ahead 
and move the waste to Yucca Mountain or to any other central facility. 
I don't see that myself. What Federal agency is going to want to 
permanently be the owner and caretaker of nuclear waste in 80 different 
locations? Clearly, DOE would not want that result. They would like to 
resolve the pending lawsuits, take title to the property, move ahead as 
quickly as possible to get the site characterized, and if it meets the 
standard, then go ahead with it. So I don't think this take title thing 
is what it is described to be.
  On the land transfer issue, on which there has been some discussion, 
there were no land transfers in the committee-reported bill. I think we 
need to understand that. So there are no maps and there was no 
discussion about it in the committee because it wasn't brought up 
there. Page 11 of the bill makes reference to ``maps dated February 1, 
2000, and on file with the Secretary of Energy.'' We can't find any 
such maps. The Secretary of Energy can't find any such maps. We don't 
know what they are talking about. There is real confusion about the 
specifics of these land transfers.
  The final point I will make on this--and I will defer to my 
colleague, Senator Reid--is the chairman, understandably, in his 
concluding remarks,

[[Page 1042]]

said if you vote for this bill, we will put this problem behind us. Mr. 
President, if that were true, I would be sorely tempted to vote for 
this bill. The truth is, we can vote for this bill, pass this bill, and 
the President can sign this bill, but not only are the problems not 
behind us, our problems would be compounded. Therefore, I will not be 
able to support the bill. I regret that we will not pass something that 
does, in fact, put the problem behind us.
  I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said yesterday, when I practiced law, I 
represented car dealers, and there were times when they got cars in 
their inventory that simply were bad cars, lemons. There wasn't 
anything they could do to fix them. They would take them into the shop 
two, three, four times, and they turned out to be lemons. I represented 
a car dealer who sold a car to someone and he said, ``They have a car 
out in front of my place painted yellow that looks like a float; it is 
a lemon.'' He said, ``You have to settle this case.''
  That is what we have. This legislation is a lemon. Whatever the 
esteemed chairman of the full committee tries to do, he can't make an 
orange out of a lemon. This is bad legislation. The Senator from New 
Mexico is known in the Senate as being a very thoughtful man. He has 
tried very hard to get a piece of legislation that improves the process 
for Yucca Mountain. Now, this situation has been amply described by 
anybody who is willing to read this legislation as being a travesty. 
This legislation doesn't help anything. It is opposed by the 
environmental community, the President of the United States, the 
Director of the EPA, and the Department of Energy Secretary. This is 
bad legislation and it should be voted against.
  Talking about the land in Nevada, nobody knows what that is. There 
are about 74 million acres in Nevada. They are talking about maps that 
don't exist. What the chairman has tried to do in this legislation is 
satisfy one group of people and, in the process, he eliminates others.
  For the first time in the history of this legislation, the utilities 
are opposed to the States. The utilities wanted to get rid of this 
nuclear waste. Now they own it more than they ever owned it. They will 
be stuck with it forever if this legislation passes.
  I think this legislation should be taken back to the drawing board to 
see if anything can be done to improve it. In the meantime, at Yucca 
Mountain the characterization is still taking place. I think we should 
let the 1987 act stand for what is going to take place at Yucca 
Mountain--not some cockamamie piece of legislation that is trying to 
give the nuclear industry a reward they don't deserve.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to share my views on the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 (S. 1287). Specifically, I want to 
explain why I will continue to oppose this legislation in its current 
form.
  Let me first express my grave concern about the process by which this 
legislation has been developed over the last few days. My office 
received a new version of this legislation, which eventually was 
proposed as a substitute amendment, nearly every day last week. Closed 
negotiations have continued even while the bill has been on the floor. 
For those of us who have utilities in our states that are grappling 
with nuclear waste storage questions, this made it nearly impossible to 
analyze this bill on behalf of our constituents. The issues presented 
in this legislation are serious policy issues, and our constituents 
deserve better information.
  I am principally opposed to this bill because it does little to 
address the nuclear waste storage question in my home state of 
Wisconsin. 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 which sought to build large scale 
interim storage facilities before the permanent storage site is ready 
and would have jeopardized consideration of the permanent site. This 
year's bill would have provided federal funds for on-site storage of 
nuclear waste until the permanent storage site at Yucca Mountain was 
ready to take our waste.
  The substitute amendment stripped out the on-site storage provisions. 
This bill now does nothing to address the waste situation at the 
majority of Wisconsin's nuclear plants. The bill, as amended by the 
substitute amendment, does contain a specific section which would 
address the nuclear waste situation at the La Crosse Boiling Water 
Reactor, which is owned by Dairyland Power and has been shut down for 
years. The Dairyland language is something that I have supported and 
will continue to support, but I had hoped this legislation would be 
able to extend similar relief to other Wisconsin utilities.
  With the on-site storage provisions stripped out, the bill retains a 
loosely knit collection of provisions that seem unlikely to have a 
beneficial impact on the country's nuclear waste program. The bill 
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's and the National Academy 
of Sciences' concurrence in the radiation exposure standard that the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is drafting--an entirely new 
procedure. If those entities do not agree, the responsibility to set 
the standard comes back to Congress. I am concerned that if those 
entities cannot agree it is likely that Congress can not do much better 
to resolve the issues.
  One of my other 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. Although the 
legislation provides for emergency response training in the 
jurisdictions through which nuclear material would be transported, I 
still feel that these provisions need to be strengthened to ensure that 
state and local governments have the financial and equipment resources 
they need to respond to accidents.
  In conclusion, I cannot support legislation which purports to fix the 
country's nuclear waste program and leaves Wisconsin so far behind. I 
continue to remain hopeful that legislation in this area can be crafted 
that can win my support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the most recent version of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000. It advances the 
process further, and it is essential that the promised and paid for 
disposal of nuclear waste from Michigan proceed. There are a number of 
provisions in this bill which are problematic and while I will vote to 
advance this legislation, I will review the final product that comes 
before the Senate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last several days the Chairman of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and the 
Ranking Member, Senator Bingaman, have been working to come to an 
agreement on legislation to resolve how our nation will provide long-
term storage for deadly nuclear waste that is currently stockpiled near 
nuclear reactors around the country.
  Despite many hours of hard work, an agreement was not reached. The 
legislation before the Senate today will not ensure the safety of the 
American public or deal with the critical issues of liability that 
first led us to consider this legislation.
  I would like to take a few moments this morning to explain why I will 
be opposing the substitute amendment to S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste 
Amendments Act of 2000.
  As Senator Bingaman explained last night, this legislation was 
proposed because the federal government was unable to meet its 
obligation under the law to provide a long-term storage site for 
nuclear waste. In 1982, Congress directed the Department of Energy to 
begin accepting waste at a long-term storage site by 1998. This 
deadline has not been met, and as a result, the taxpayers are facing 
billions of dollars in potential liability.
  Originally, this bill would have allowed the Department to settle 
these lawsuits by taking title to the waste in its current sites 
pending completion of a long-term storage facility. This provision has 
now been removed from the

[[Page 1043]]

bill. As a result, this legislation does nothing to relieve the 
taxpayers of the enormous bill they may have to foot.
  I am also deeply concerned by steps taken in the bill to undermine 
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to set radiation 
safety standards. EPA has currently proposed tough but reasonable 
standards to protect groundwater and those living in the area. These 
standards are consistent with a report of the National Academy of 
Sciences issued in 1995.
  However, this legislation prevents EPA from issuing final standards 
until June 1, 2001. The clear expectation underlying this provision is 
that a new president will be in office who will support weaker 
standards than those currently proposed.
  Mr. President, it is unacceptable to gamble with the health of 
Americans who will be living near the long-term storage site. It is 
very likely that waste will be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. 
Nearby, there is a dairy farm and fields of crops that use groundwater 
for irrigation. If we do not support tough safety standards, there is a 
chance that radiation in the groundwater will end up in the water used 
in these farms and for drinking by those who live there, putting public 
health at risk.
  Finally, I am concerned about an enormous potential write-off for 
nuclear utilities in this bill. Currently, utilities pay into a Nuclear 
Waste Fund to ensure that the Department of Energy has the resources it 
needs to pay for long-term storage. This bill caps the amount that must 
be paid by utilities, setting up the taxpayer to fund whatever costs 
remain.
  We need to do a better job of protecting the safety of the American 
public and the taxpayers from the bottomless liability that may result 
from this legislation. For these reasons, I will oppose this bill.
  Finally, I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his hard work on this 
issue, and Senators Reid and Bryan. While this bill today is not yet 
satisfactory, it is significantly better than those we have seen in the 
past. It is largely thanks to the efforts of these Senators that these 
changes have been made.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1287, a bill to 
provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel, pending completion of 
the permanent nuclear waste repository.
  I also want to thank Senator Craig and Senator Murkowski for their 
tireless efforts to move forward on legislation to address the issue of 
disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste.
  The federal government made a commitment to the nation's nuclear 
utilities that it would build a permanent repository to dispose of 
commercial spent nuclear fuel. By law, the repository was supposed to 
be ready to accept nuclear waste by 1998.
  Six billion dollars later, the Department of Energy effort to build a 
repository is years behind schedule and mired in political warfare.
  As a result of these delays, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia ruled that the DOE had failed to meet its legal 
obligations and ordered the Department to pay contractual damages to 
the nuclear utilities.
  If the current situation is allowed to continue, the utilities will 
be paying twice. They have already contributed to the nuclear waste 
fund to build the repository. Without this legislation, they will 
continue to pay for the repository and on site storage for waste the 
federal government said it would take.
  As a result of national defense and research activities, the federal 
government itself has generated thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel 
and high-level waste. This waste continues to be monitored and stored 
at federal sites across the country, including the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, at significant cost. This 
waste is also waiting to be sent to a permanent repository.
  The financial resources that are necessary to continuously store, 
monitor, and maintain this fuel and waste are overwhelming and could be 
used for other constructive purposes by the government and utilities 
instead of watching and waiting as has been the past practice.
  This bill offers an option for relief to utilities where the 
Department of Energy could take title to the fuel and transport it to 
the repository site. Different from past legislation, this bill 
identifies that spent fuel storage at the repository site, in advance 
of fuel placement in a repository, cannot occur until construction of 
the repository has been authorized.
  This bill is particularly important to the State of Idaho because of 
the 1995 Settlement Agreement. This agreement was entered into in 
Federal court. It was agreed to by the Departments of Energy and Navy 
and the State of Idaho. One of the requirements is to remove all spent 
fuel from Idaho by 2035. A repository or interim storage site is 
essential for the parties to comply with the agreement.
  The logical location for the permanent repository is Yucca Mountain. 
It has been designated by Congress as the only site for study. It is 
located on dry Federal desert land. It is adjacent to the Nation's 
nuclear testing site where hundreds of nuclear weapons have been 
exploded.
  The bill establishes a schedule for decisions on the adequacy of 
Yucca Mountain as a repository which will allow the parties to comply 
with the Idaho Settlement Agreement. The bill also deletes the 70,000 
metric ton uranium cap which had been imposed on the repository. 
Removal of this cap allows one geological repository to be capable of 
handling the nation's inventory of spent fuel and high-level waste 
instead of multiple repositories.
  The bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and National 
Academy of Sciences to give input on the scientific validity and 
protection of the public health and safety provided by the proposed 
Environmental Protection Agency radiation standard. The Environmental 
Protection Agency maintains standard setting authority, cannot set a 
standard until June 1, 2001, and is not bound to accept or even 
consider the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or National Academy of 
Sciences input. This compromise only delays the setting of a radiation 
standard by the Environmental Protection Agency and delays the date by 
when the Secretary of Energy will have an established radiation 
standard to work to. Although I dislike the compromise that was reached 
I understand that a compromise needed to be made to move this important 
legislation forward.
  Support of this bill is the right thing to do for the country.
  Idaho is one of several states where defense and DOE spent nuclear 
fuel and high level waste are stored; other major states include 
Washington, South Carolina, and New York.
  There are over 70 commercial nuclear utilities that are storing spent 
nuclear fuel because the federal government has not lived up to its 
contract.
  Storage facilities at these locations are filling up quickly, will 
not last forever, and will be expensive to monitor and maintain.
  The U.S. receives 20 percent of its electricity capacity from nuclear 
power. There are no other emission free alternative power generating 
technologies that could replace this capacity if opponents are 
successful in shutting down nuclear power. Many of the issues 
associated with spent nuclear fuel are political, not technical. 
Nuclear fuel has been moved safely across this country and around the 
world for nearly forty years. The ``mobile Chernobyl'' scare tactics 
are a myth.
  Movement needs to continue on a permanent repository and relief needs 
to be provided for nuclear utilities. This bill provides forward 
momentum and relief.
  I would have preferred to see the bill go further by establishing an 
interim storage facility at the Nevada Test Site and vesting standard 
setting authority with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
Unfortunately, the Congress has been unable to enact this type of 
legislation because of the threat of a presidential veto. While I would 
have preferred to vote in support of a stronger bill, I understand why 
Senator Murkowski has made concessions to the other side to try to move 
this legislation forward.

[[Page 1044]]

  This is an important piece of legislation which will show the 
American people that we can address the issue of nuclear waste in a way 
that is technically and environmentally sound.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to support enactment of this important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity 
before we vote to recognize a member of the Senate staff who has 
contributed a lot to the nuclear waste debate over the years. That 
person is Joe Barry, who has worked for Senator Bryan for many years, 
and who apparently has actually had other duties not related to nuclear 
waste, as well. He is a tremendous professional who has helped keep the 
debate in the Senate on this issue on a high level of technical 
accuracy. I understand that he will be leaving for a position in the 
private sector in Boston when we break for this recess. Senators don't 
always agree with each other in debate. The search for relevant and 
accurate information and perspectives is essential to the legislative 
process, and is greatly helped when Members have highly competent 
professional staff like Joe. We will miss him in this chamber, and I 
would like to extend my personal best wishes to him for great success 
in the future.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support S. 1287, 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
  I cannot support this bill because it fails to meet the safety 
concerns of our local communities regarding the hazards of nuclear 
waste. I cannot support this bill because it poses an unacceptable 
danger to the lives and health of the thousands of Minnesotans and 
millions of Americans who live near shipment routes.
  By dramatically increasing the number of hazardous shipments through 
local communities, S. 1287 increases the risk of transportation 
accidents involving nuclear waste and could put public health and 
safety in jeopardy. This legislation would mean an additional 800 
shipments in the first two years, growing to about 1,800 shipments 
annually by the fifth year. These shipments would continue for at least 
25 years, traveling within half a mile of 50 million Americans.
  Under this legislation, highly dangerous nuclear waste would be 
shipped through 40 or more states, including my own state of Minnesota, 
regardless of whether it is safe for our local communities, and without 
their input. Without reliable and efficient emergency response 
safeguards for our local communities, S. 1287 fails to protect local 
communities from even a small accident during the shipment of nuclear 
waste.
  Recently, DOE projected that a nuclear waste transportation accident 
in a rural area with even a small release of radioactive material would 
contaminate 42 square miles. DOE also estimated that it would take 460 
days to clean up such an accident, at a cost of $620 million. The 
safety record of nuclear waste transportation should give us pause. 
Between 1964 and 1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) made 
approximately 2,913 shipments of used nuclear fuel. During this time, 
there were 47 safety incidents involving nuclear shipments, including 6 
accidents.
  Furthermore, S. 1287 undermines the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) standard-setting process. It would delay the EPA's existing 
statutory authority to adopt health and safety standards to protect 
local communities from the release of radioactive materials. This delay 
stands in fundamental contradiction to the claimed urgency of this 
legislation. It also highlights the misplaced priorities of S. 1287, 
with an unacceptable emphasis on disposal at any cost, regardless of 
whether the safety and health of local communities have been adequately 
provided for.
  It is especially regrettable that S. 1287 does not resolve our 
dilemma regarding the future of nuclear waste storage. Nobody, 
including me, wants this waste to stay onsite forever, but we need a 
safe and responsible solution for disposal of the waste we have 
created. As we head into the 21st century, we urgently need to develop 
a policy that protects the health and safety of local communities and 
all Americans. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that requirement. 
S. 1287 is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and a regression 
from past legislative efforts in this area. And for that reason I am 
voting against it.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly oppose S. 1287 and the 
substitute amendment being offered. This is bad policy and should be 
rejected by the Senate.
  Protecting the health and safety of American citizens should be our 
highest priority in evaluating the disposal of our nuclear waste. In 
order to do this, all decisions must be made based on science, not 
politics. This legislation does not do that. Under the cover of a 
``compromise'' bill, this legislation is the latest attempt to pre-empt 
science and legislate the scientific suitability of Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, as a high-level nuclear waste dump.
  Instead of finding a repository that meets our health and safety 
standards established in law, this legislation attempts to weaken our 
health and safety standards to meet the repository. I cannot and will 
not support such an action.
  For many years we have debated the suitability of a high-level 
radioactive waste dump site at Yucca Mountain. And for years, I have 
been down on this Senate floor with my colleagues from Nevada fighting 
to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Nevada. But I know 
that Yucca Mountain is not just a Nevada issue, it is a national 
issue--and more important to me, it seriously and directly affects my 
State of California.
  Yucca Mountain is only 17 miles from the California border and the 
Death Valley National Park. Development of this site has the potential 
to contaminate California's groundwater and poses unnecessary threats 
to the health and safety of Californians due to possible transportation 
accidents from shipping high-level nuclear waste through Inyo, San 
Bernardino and neighboring California counties.
  Since its inception as a National Monument in 1933, the federal 
government has invested more than $600 million in the Death Valley 
National Park. The Park receives over 1.4 million visitors every year. 
Furthermore, the communities surrounding the park are economically 
dependent on tourism. The income generated by the presence of the Park 
exceeds $125 million per year. The Park has been the most significant 
element in the sustainable growth of the tourist industry in the Mojave 
Desert. The Park is committed to sustainable growth of jobs and 
infrastructure in contrast to the traditional boom-and-dust desert 
economy.
  Scientific studies show that a significant part of the regional 
groundwater aquifer surrounding Yucca Mountain discharges in Death 
Valley because the valley is down-gradient of areas to the east. If the 
groundwater at Death Valley is contaminated, that will be the demise of 
the Park and the surrounding communities. The long-term viability of 
fish, wildlife and human populations in the area are largely dependent 
on water from this aquifer. The vast majority of the Park's visitors 
rely on services and facilities at the park headquarters near Furnace 
Creek. These facilities are all dependent upon the groundwater aquifer 
that flows under or near Yucca Mountain. And, unfortunately, there is 
no alternative water source that can support the visitor facilities and 
wildlife resources.
  Water is life in the desert. Water quality must be preserved for the 
viability of Death Valley National Park and the dependent tourism 
industry.
  I hope my colleagues agree that we should not threaten these 
visitors, this natural treasure, and our huge financial investment with 
incomplete science and unnecessary actions. The potential loss is just 
too great.
  It has been extremely difficult to get the Energy Department to 
accept California's connection to the site. Although DOE now recognizes 
Inyo County, California as an Affected Unit of Local Government under 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it did so reluctantly after a successful 
lawsuit by the county that resulted in DOE granting affected unit 
status in 1991. Inyo is the

[[Page 1045]]

only county in California that is now listed. Fortunately, in response 
to a letter that I sent to the Energy Department, a hearing will be 
schedule in San Bernardino County to discuss the potential threat of 
transportation routes through the county. But my State's concerns are 
not being fully addressed. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to 
Secretary Richardson and his response be included in the Record.
  As an Affected Unit of Local Government, Inyo County receives Federal 
appropriations to monitor the Yucca Mountain project. The primary 
thrust of Inyo County's monitoring program has been to demonstrate the 
hydrologic connection between the aquifer underlying Yucca Mountain and 
the discharge points in Death Valley National Park and surrounding 
communities.
  In addition to the groundwater concerns, my State is extremely 
concerned about the increased transportation of high level radioactive 
waste that will be shipped through our State as a result of this bill. 
Despite my objections, the Department of Energy has already started to 
ship low-level nuclear waste through Inyo County to the Nevada Test 
Site. Inyo and San Bernardino are especially concerned because of the 
lack of thorough studies on the transportation routes.
  The State of California has also been very involved in this issue. 
The California Energy Commission's comments on the Yucca Mountain 
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement express the State's 
serious concerns over the possible groundwater contamination and the 
lack of adequate analysis of proper transportation routes. In fact, the 
Western Governor's Association has repeatedly asked the Energy 
Department to complete a more detailed and thorough analysis of the 
transportation routes to Yucca Mountain to no avail.
  While the legislation that we are debating today is an improvement 
from bills introduced and debated in the past, it still must be 
stopped. This legislation would undermine the regulatory framework 
authorized in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and implemented by 
the EPA and DOE.
  The EPA was directed by Congress to establish a radiation exposure 
standard for Yucca Mountain. The EPA is in the process of completing 
that requirement. The draft standards were issued last August and the 
EPA is currently considering all comments on the proposal. The draft 
standard includes a separate--and much needed--groundwater standard for 
the repository that must meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
  The legislation we are discussing today prevents the Clinton 
Administration from acting in a timely manner to protect public health. 
However, once this Administration leaves office, the EPA standards 
could move forward. Where is the science in that?
  This provision flies in the face of science and the fundamental 
principle of protecting public health and safety first and foremost.
  I understand that a 1995 study by the Department of Energy showed 
that the radiation at Yucca Mountain would be much higher than allowed 
under current regulations. In fact, the DOE study finds that maximum 
doses at the site would be 50 rem per year.
  If, like me, you are not a scientist, let me put that number into 
perspective for you. That is like having approximately 5,000 chest x-
rays annually. Furthermore, it is about 2000 times higher than what the 
public is currently permitted to receive under an operating powerplant 
under current EPA regulations. That dose is sufficient to produce 
approximately 100 percent probability of dying of cancer under NRC and 
DOE current risk estimates. Virtually everyone exposed to that dose 
would die of cancer. So rather than go back and try to design a better 
repository to meet the standards, we are on this floor to change the 
standards to meet the repository.
  Finally, the one provision in S. 1287 that most people could agree on 
was stripped from this substitute amendment. That provision would have 
allowed the Energy Secretary to take title to the waste that is 
currently being stored on-site in order to resolve the liability issue.
  The alleged reason for moving this legislation was to deal with the 
liability issue that was created by a successful lawsuit from the 
utilities against the Energy Department. The utilities claimed that the 
Energy Department was not meeting its obligations under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act to store this waste. And the utilities won. Senator 
Murkowski and Secretary Richardson seemed to agree that the best way to 
resolve this issue was to have the Energy Department take title to the 
waste at the utilities. That was the reason for moving a bill. Now, 
that provision is gone, and therefore the reason to move this bill is 
gone.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this unnecessary 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that correspondence in regard to this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Hart Senate Office Building,

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Richardson,
     Secretary of Energy, James Forrestal Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing about the environmental 
     impact report being prepared for the proposed transfer of 
     radioactive material to Yucca Mountain near Las Vegas. More 
     specifically, I am writing about the concerns of the San 
     Bernardino Board of Supervisors that the County of San 
     Bernardino has received less than adequate information about 
     the process.
       Though radioactive material being transported to Yucca 
     Mountain in Nevada will be transported within San Bernardino 
     County, there has been no hearing on the proposal within the 
     County. Further, San Bernardino County officials allege that 
     they have received no formal notice of hearings held outside 
     the county or other notices of the environmental process.
       I understand that other hearings were recently added to the 
     Yucca Mountain review process. This is a request that you 
     schedule a further hearing within San Bernardino County. I am 
     certain that San Bernardino County officials will be happy to 
     help arrange such a hearing. Thank you for your attention to 
     this matter. Please respond to me through my San Bernardino 
     office.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                                          Secretary of Energy,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your letter of January 
     12, 2000, regarding the environmental impact report being 
     prepared for the proposed transfer of radioactive material to 
     Yucca Mountain.
       I am sensitive to your concerns and the concerns of your 
     constituents in San Bernardino County regarding their 
     involvement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
     for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear 
     Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 
     County, Nevada. I have added an additional public hearing in 
     the city of San Bernardino. The hearing will be held prior to 
     the end of the comment period for the Draft EIS, which has 
     been extended until February 28, 2000. A Federal Register 
     Notice announcing the date and location of this public 
     hearing is forthcoming.
       The Department is making every effort to address the 
     public's interest in this document. This past December, three 
     additional hearings were scheduled to include locations in 
     the Midwest, including Lincoln, Nebraska; Cleveland, Ohio; 
     and Chicago, Illinois. With the inclusion of an additional 
     hearing in your State, the Department will have conducted a 
     total of 21 hearings, 11 throughout the country and 10 in the 
     State of Nevada. The Department is striving to ensure that 
     the public has ample opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. 
     I hope the additional hearing in California addresses your 
     concerns and those of your constituents.
       If you have any questions or additional concerns, please 
     call me or have a member of your staff contact John C. 
     Angell, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and 
     Intergovernmental Affairs, at 202-586-5450.
           Yours sincerely,
     Bill Richardson.
                                  ____

                                             Board of Supervisors,


                                     County of San Bernardino,

                             San Bernardino, CA, January 12, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: The Board of Supervisors unanimously 
     approved [a] resolution at our meeting yesterday. It 
     expresses our substantial concern over the lack of 
     notification from the Department of Energy with regard to 
     their plans to transport thousands of shipments of high-level 
     radioactive waste through the major cities of our County.

[[Page 1046]]

       The only hearing held in this State took place in a remote 
     area hundreds of miles from our major population centers. In 
     addition we were not provided with any official notification 
     of the Issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement nor 
     were we provided a copy of same.
       While we understand that transportation and storage/
     disposal of this material is essential for operation of 
     various facilities, it is only appropriate that the 
     jurisdictions which will be recipient of the majority of 
     these shipments be given notice and response opportunities.
       We ask for your strong support for our request to the 
     Department of Energy for full disclosure, additional time for 
     response and review, and for a public hearing to be held in 
     our area. The hearing should be held somewhere near the 
     population centers which will be subject to these shipments 
     and the potential dangers imposed thereby.
       We appreciate your serious consideration of this request.
           Sincerely.
                                                      Jerry Eaves,
     Supervisor, Fifth District.
                                  ____

                                                County of Ventura,
                                                 February 1, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: I am writing to reiterate the Ventura 
     County Board of Supervisors' opposition to S. 1287, the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 1999, which, as currently 
     written, would allow spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 
     to be transported through Ventura County.
       The Board of Supervisors endorses the development of a 
     national policy for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel. 
     However, the Board opposes transporting these material 
     through Ventura County. County officials and residents are 
     concerned about the proximity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear 
     Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County and the vulnerability 
     to potential disasters related to the transportation of 
     hazardous materials through the community, which poses 
     serious health and safety risks to County residents.
       Please vote against S. 1287 unless it is amended to 
     prohibit the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and 
     radioactive waste through Ventura County and other heavily 
     populated areas.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Thomas P. Walters,
     Washington Representative.
                                  ____



                                               County of Inyo,

                               Independence, CA, February 1, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer, I am writing to express concern with S. 
     1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999. S. 
     1287 proposes to abandon current specific DOE guidelines for 
     determining the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada (for 
     siting of a nuclear waste repository) in lieu of less-
     demanding, generalized criteria. S. 1287 also removes the 
     role of the Environmental Protection Agency from determining 
     the human health standard to which repository design and 
     operations should be held.
       S. 1287, as it currently stands, would replace DOE's 
     current and specific site suitability criteria (10 CFR 960--
     adopted in 1986 after considerable public input) with a 
     generalized ``total system performance assessment'' approach 
     (proposed in 10 CFR 963) which does not require the site to 
     meet specific criteria with regard to site geology and 
     hydrology or waste packet performance. Replacement of the 
     current site suitability criteria by 10 CFR 963 would reduce 
     the likelihood that the repository would be designed and 
     constructed using the best available technology. Individual 
     components of the repository system could be less than 
     optimal in design and performance if computer modeling of the 
     design showed it capable of meeting NRC's less-demanding 
     standard. Given the significant long-term risk that 
     development of the repository places on California 
     populations and resources, any compromises on repository 
     design, operations or materials cannot be tolerated.
       S. 1287 allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set a 
     standard for protection of the public from radiological 
     exposure associated with development of the repository. The 
     power to set a standard for the Yucca Mountain project 
     rightfully belongs with the EPA in its traditional role of 
     setting health standards for Federal projects. In our recent 
     response to EPA's proposed radiological health standard for 
     the repository, Inyo County stated its strong support for EPA 
     authority over the project and for use of a standard which 
     focuses on maintaining the safety of groundwater in the Yucca 
     Mountain-Amargosa Valley-Death Valley region.
       Based on these considerations, S. 1287 will not provide 
     adequate protection for Inyo County resources or citizens. We 
     hope that the provisions in the bill for setting repository 
     standards and for changing the site suitability guidelines 
     will be deleted.
       We appreciate your continued support of Inyo County's 
     efforts to safeguard the health and safety of its citizens.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Dorame,
       Supervisor, Fifth District, County of Inyo.
                                  ____



                                 California Energy Commission,

                                 Sacramento, CA, February 7, 2000.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: We have reviewed S. 1287 (Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Amendments Act of 2000) (NWPA) and offer the following 
     comments.
       The State of California, including thirteen California 
     agencies, has reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca 
     Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository. This review, 
     coordinated by the California Energy Commission, identified 
     major areas of deficiencies and scientific uncertainties in 
     the DEIS regarding potential transportation and groundwater 
     impacts in California from the repository. In light of these 
     deficiencies and uncertainties, there are serious questions 
     whether a decision should/can be made on the Yucca Mt. site's 
     suitability in time for shipments to begin in 2007, as 
     required by S. 1287.
       These deficiencies and uncertainties include the need for 
     better data and more realistic models to evaluate groundwater 
     flow and potential radionuclide migration toward regional 
     groundwater supplies in eastern California. In addition, 
     there are major scientific uncertainties regarding key 
     variables affecting how well geologic and engineered barriers 
     at the repository can isolate the wastes from the 
     environment. For example, there is considerable uncertainty 
     regarding waste package corrosion rates, potential water 
     seepage through the walls of the repository, groundwater 
     levels and flow beneath the repository, and the potential 
     impact on California aquifers from the potential migration of 
     radionuclides from the repository. California is concerned 
     about these uncertainties and deficiencies in studies of the 
     Yucca Mt. project and the serious lack of progress in DOE's 
     developing transportation plans for shipments to the 
     repository.
       Potential major impacts in California from the proposed 
     repository include: (1) transportation impacts, (2) potential 
     radionuclide contamination of groundwater in the Death Valley 
     region, and (3) impacts on wildlife, natural habitat and 
     public parks along shipment corridors and from groundwater 
     contamination. Transportation is the single area of the 
     proposed Yucca Mt. project that will affect the most people 
     across the United States, since the shipments will be 
     traveling cross-country on the nation's highways and 
     railways. California is a major generator of spent nuclear 
     fuel and currently stores this waste at four operating 
     commercial nuclear power reactors, three commercial reactors 
     being decommissioned, and at five research reactor locations 
     throughout the State. Under current plans, spent nuclear fuel 
     shipments from California reactors will begin the first year 
     of shipments to a repository or storage facility.
       In addition to the spent fuel generated in California, a 
     major portion of the shipments from other states to the Yucca 
     Mountain site could be routed through California. This 
     concern was elevated recently when DOE decided, over the 
     objections of California and Inyo and San Bernardino 
     Counties, to reroute through southeastern California, along 
     California Route 127, thousands of low-level waste shipments 
     from eastern states to the Nevada Test Site, in order to 
     avoid nuclear waste shipments through Las Vegas and over 
     Hoover Dam. We objected to DOE's rerouting these shipments 
     over California Route 127 because this roadway was not 
     engineered for such large volumes of heavy truck traffic, 
     lacks timely emergency response capability, is heavily 
     traveled by tourists, and is subject to periodic flash 
     flooding. We are concerned that S. 1287, by requiring that 
     shipments minimize transport through heavily populated areas, 
     could force NWPA shipments onto roadways in California, such 
     as State Route 127, that are not suitable for such shipments.
       The massive scale of these shipments to the repository or 
     interim storage site will be unprecedented. Nevada's 
     preliminary estimates of potential legal-weight truck 
     shipments to Yucca Mountain show that an estimated 74,000 
     truck shipments, about three-fourths of the total, could 
     traverse southern California under DOE's ``mostly truck'' 
     scenario. Shipments could average five truck shipments daily 
     through California during the 39-year time period of waste 
     emplacement. Under a mixed truck and rail scenario, 
     California could receive an average of two truck shipments 
     per day and 4-5 rail shipments per week for 39 years. Under a 
     ``best case'' scenario that assumes the use of large rail 
     shipping containers, Nevada estimates there could be more 
     than 26,000 truck shipments and 9,800 shipments through 
     California to the repository.
       We are concerned that S. 1287 would require that NWPA 
     shipments begin prematurely before the necessary studies 
     determining the site's suitability have been completed and 
     before the transportation impacts of this decision have been 
     fully evaluated. S. 1287 accelerates the schedule for the 
     repository by requiring shipments to begin at the

[[Page 1047]]

     earliest practicable date and no later than January 31, 2007. 
     In contrast, DOE has been planning for shipments to begin in 
     2010, a date considered by many to be overly optimistic. 
     Shipping waste to a site before the necessary scientific 
     evaluations of the site have been completed and before route-
     specific transportation impacts have been fully evaluated 
     could have costly results. The DOE nuclear weapons complex 
     has many examples of inappropriate sites where expediency has 
     created a legacy of very costly waste clean-up, e.g., 
     Hanford, Washington. The use of methods that were not fully 
     tested for the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes has 
     resulted in contaminants from these wastes leaking into the 
     environment. Transporting waste to a site, as mandated by S. 
     1287, before the appropriate analyses are completed could 
     create a ``de facto'' high-level waste repository in 
     perpetuity with unknown and potentially serious long-term 
     public and environmental consequences.
           Sincerely,
     Robert A. Laurie,
       Commissioner and State Liaison Officer to the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission.


              why nuclear waste won't go to south carolina

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to inquire of the manager whether it is 
possible for any spent nuclear fuel to go to South Carolina under the 
provisions of Section 102, ``Backup Storage Capacity'' of the manager's 
substitute amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely not. Spent nuclear fuel cannot go to South 
Carolina under the specific terms of the amendment's Backup Storage 
Capacity provisions, which states that the government shall: ``* * * 
transport such spent fuel to, and store such spent fuel at, the 
repository site. * * *'' That site is Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the manager.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, what is the remaining time on this 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as this debate comes to an end, I think 
it appropriate to respond to my friend from New Mexico relative to what 
I understand he said--that he had not seen a real letter from the 
Governors opposing taking title. I don't know whether the White House 
will not make that available, but we have it here. I will be happy to 
share it with him. I will put it in the Record because it shows all the 
signatures of all the Governors:
  The Honorable Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont; the Honorable Jeb 
Bush, Governor of Florida; the Honorable Angus King, Jr., Governor of 
Maine; the Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon; the Honorable 
Jeanne Shaheen, Governor of New Hampshire; the Honorable Jesse Ventura, 
Governor of Minnesota; and the Honorable Tom Vilsack, Governor of Iowa.
  There are more coming, I am told. I hope we can put that particular 
criticism to rest.
  This is not an imaginary letter. This a letter from the Governors 
objecting, if you will, to the situation of leaving the waste in their 
States for the specific reason that they don't trust the Federal 
Government. The reason they do not trust the Federal Government is the 
Federal Government has not performed on its contract after taking $15 
billion from the ratepayers to take the waste. They are fearful that 
the waste will stay in their States under the control of the Federal 
Government. That is a legitimate concern.
  Again, I refer to the chart of where that waste is. It is in those 40 
States. It is in 40 States, and each Member is going to have to respond 
as to why they voted to leave that waste in their State.
  We have had questions brought up about the land in Nevada. It is kind 
of fuzzy because this is beneficial to Nevada. Now they are saying they 
did not have any notice and they don't have the maps. The maps are in 
our office. We have them for the counties. I am sure the minority could 
get them. I am sure the two Senators from Nevada could get the maps of 
their own counties. We have them in our office, in fact, and I will try 
to get them in the Record so they can see them.
  As far as the land transfer is concerned, it has always been in 
previous bills. These are smokescreens. Our friends from Nevada are 
trying to explain why this isn't a good deal. They wanted it. It is 
there. Now they are saying: Well, just wait a minute; we don't have the 
facts. We have them. They are there and available for anybody. The land 
transfer is authorized in the previous bills. Let's not beat around the 
bush.
  In the remaining time I have, I want to highlight what this bill 
really accomplishes.
  I think the minority ranking member would recognize that we have 
tried to work with him on his list of alternatives. We addressed his 
concern on the interim storage. Our bill uses the WIPP transportation 
model. EPA has the sole authority to set the standard. We took out the 
international collaboration in transmutation which they wanted. We 
couldn't take everything, but we certainly tried.
  This is a valuable piece of legislation as it stands because we have 
in this substitute dropped the interim storage. Isn't this kind of 
ironic? We dropped the interim storage. The administration was opposed 
to the interim storage in Nevada. The idea was that we could move this 
stuff out at a critical time and put it out there. They said: No, we 
can't do that until Yucca is finalized--until it is finally licensed. 
But now they are doing it twice. They are having it both ways. They are 
saying we will just leave it in the State. Then it becomes interim in 
the State. These Governors are smart enough to figure it out. I hope 
every Member of this body is because it is a flimflam. That is just 
what it is.
  The administration wants to have it both ways. They do not want 
interim storage. They want the interim storage in the States. It drops 
interim storage.
  It requires Congress to approve any increase in fees to protect the 
consumer. It sets schedules for development of a repository. It 
authorizes backup storage at the repository for any spent fuel that the 
utilities can't store on site. It allows the EPA to set radiation 
standards after June 1, 2001; prior to that consultation only with NAS 
and NRC, to ensure that any standard is the best science available.
  What in the world is wrong with that?
  It authorizes settlement agreements for outstanding litigation. It 
requires an election to settle within 180 days as requested by the 
administration. In other words, it brings them together.
  Finally, it transfers 76,000 acres.
  Let me conclude by saying that each Member is going to have to 
respond as to why they left this waste in their State if they don't 
support this bill. I encourage my colleagues to recognize that it is 
time to bring this matter to an end. Let's support the legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. President, let me respond to the map issue. I think the Senator 
from Alaska characterized it as ``flimflam.'' That is what this 
legislation is. As recently as yesterday, in requesting the maps, they 
had none. The only thing they have is these notes right here. I ask 
unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                 payments to local counties eliminated

       Annual payments prior to first receipt of fuel: 2.5 
     million/year $12.5.
       Upon 1st fuel receipt: 5 million/one time 5.0.
       Annual payments after 1st receipt until closure: $5 
     million/year (2007-2042 125 million.)
       Total--Over 140 million up to 2042 then 5 million/year 
     after that.


                       land conveyances retained

       Total of: 76,000 acres.
       46,000 to Nye County.
       30,000 to Lincoln County.
       For a variety of uses: For example--
       City of Caliente:
       Municipal landfill (240 acres).
       Community growth (2,640 acres).
       Community recreation (800 acres).
       Lincoln County
       Community Growth:
       Pioche--2,080 acres.
       Panaca--2,240 acres.
       Rachel--1,280 acres.

[[Page 1048]]

       Alamo--1,920 acres.
       These lands had been previously identified by BLM as 
     available for disposal.
       Towns:
       Beatty--3,400 acres.
       Ione--1,280 acres.
       Manhattan--750 acres.
       Round Mountain/Smokey Valley--11,300 acres.
       Tonopah--11,500 acres.
       Total estimated 28,230 acres.
       Towns:
       Amargosa--2,700 acres.
       Pahrump--14,750 acres.
       Total estimated 17,450 acres.
       BLM/Grand Total: 45,680 acres.
       Western Members should be pleased about this kind of 
     transfer of public lands from federal ownership.
       There are lots of benefits to doing these kinds of 
     transfers:
       Long term financial benefits are:
       Decrease federal mgmt costs;
       Increase State & local benefits;
       The land can now be used for income providing activities.
       Such transfers help consolidate land ownership and that 
     leads to a more cost-effective and environmentally sound 
     ecosystem management.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, there are no maps.
  That will give you some indication of what a shoddy, moving target 
this has been as we have tried to debate and expand on it. It is simply 
indefensible public policy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and one-half minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take the remaining time to 
commend our chairman, Senator Murkowski, for his heroic efforts in 
trying to come up with legislation that would be constructive and deal 
with this problem. This is not an easy issue to resolve. There are many 
points of view.
  First, the subject is complex. The history of the legislation is 
certainly varied and difficult.
  I certainly believe the chairman has worked in good faith to try to 
come up with a solution. As I stated several times this morning, I do 
not believe he has been successful in that regard.
  I am not able to support the bill.
  I think there is a lot of confusion that has surrounded our debate 
here on the floor. As to the whole notion that the Governors are 
fearful that waste would wind up remaining in their States if they did 
not drop this take title provision, I can say if they are worried that 
waste will remain, they have good grounds to be worried because it is 
going to remain in their States. Under current law, and under this 
legislation, if this legislation becomes law, the waste will remain in 
their States. The only question is, who is going to have ownership and 
responsibility for that waste.
  We had proposed that the Department of Energy be given ownership and 
responsibility. We believe that would, if anything, desensitize the 
Department to move ahead more quickly on Yucca Mountain. I believe that 
is clearly the case.
  The notion that anybody who opposes this bill is going to have to 
explain why they want waste to remain in their States is not the issue 
on which we are voting. Waste is going to remain in each of the States 
where it is now located unless and until we get the Yucca Mountain site 
characterized. I hope we do that quickly. I am doing all I can to 
support doing that quickly. I believe the waste should be moved to a 
permanent repository. I think that is clearly where we need to head. 
But the notion that this problem is going to be somehow solved by 
passing this bill is just not supported by anything. There is no logic 
to that.
  We can pass this bill. This bill can be signed by the President. You 
can wind up 5 years from now trying to explain to people in your State 
why the waste is still sitting there because it is going to be there in 
5 years regardless.
  I think people need to understand that there is much less here than 
meets the eye. As far as this legislation is concerned, anyone who 
thinks this legislation is going to put any problem behind them is 
going to be sorely disappointed down the road. In fact, I think the 
problems will be compounded if we enact this legislation and it were to 
become law.
  I urge colleagues to oppose the bill and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous 
order, the hour of 11 a.m. having arrived, the substitute amendment, 
No. 2808, is agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended, 
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''--
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 34, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     McCain
       
  The bill (S. 1287), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 1287

       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 ``Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Amendments Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``contract holder'' means a party to a 
     contract with the Secretary of Energy for the disposal of 
     spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste entered 
     into pursuant to section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)); and
       (2) the terms ``Administrator'', ``civilian nuclear power 
     reactor'', ``Commission'', ``Department'', ``disposal'', 
     ``high-level radioactive waste'', ``Indian tribe'', 
     ``repository'', ``reservation'', ``Secretary'', ``spent 
     nuclear fuel'', ``State'', ``storage'', ``Waste Fund'', and 
     ``Yucca Mountain site'' shall have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
     (42 U.S.C. 10101).

                     TITLE I--STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

     SEC. 101. PROGRAM SCHEDULE.

       (a) In General.--The President, the Secretary, and the 
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall carry out their duties 
     under this Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 by 
     the earliest practicable date consistent with the public 
     interest and applicable provisions of law.
       (b) Milestones.--(1) The Secretary shall make a final 
     decision whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for 
     development of the repository to the President by December 
     31, 2001;
       (2) The President shall make a final decision whether to 
     recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development of the 
     repository to the Congress by March 31, 2002;
       (3) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall make a final 
     decision whether to authorize construction of the repository 
     by January 31, 2006; and
       (4) As provided in subsection (c), the Secretary shall 
     begin receiving waste at the repository site at the earliest 
     practicable date

[[Page 1049]]

     and no later than eighteen months after receiving 
     construction authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission.
       (c) Receipt Facilities.--(1) As part of the submission of 
     an application for a construction authorization pursuant to 
     section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10134(b)), the Secretary shall apply to the Commission 
     to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste at surface facilities within the geologic 
     repository operations area for the receipt, handling, 
     packaging, and storage prior to emplacement.
       (2) As part of the issuance of the construction 
     authorization under section 114(b) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982, the Commission shall authorize 
     construction of surface facilities described in subsection 
     (c)(1) and the receipt and possession of spent nuclear fuel 
     and high-level radioactive waste at such surface facilities 
     within the geologic repository operations area for the 
     purposes in subsection (c)(1), in accordance with such 
     standards as the Commission finds are necessary to protect 
     the public health and safety.

     SEC. 102. BACKUP STORAGE CAPACITY.

       (a) Subject to section 105(d), the Secretary shall enter 
     into a contract under this subsection with any person 
     generating or owning spent nuclear fuel that meets the 
     requirements of section 135(b)(1) (A) and (B) of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10155(b)(1) (A) and (B)) 
     to--
       (1) take title at the civilian nuclear power reactor site 
     to such amounts of spent nuclear fuel from the civilian 
     nuclear power reactor as the Commission determines cannot be 
     stored onsite; and
       (2) transport such spent nuclear fuel to, and store such 
     spent nuclear fuel at, the repository site after the 
     Commission has authorized construction of the repository 
     without regard to the Secretary's Acceptance Priority Ranking 
     report or Annual Capacity report.

     SEC. 103. REPOSITORY LICENSING.

       (a) Adoption of Standards.--Notwithstanding the time 
     schedule in section 801(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note), the Administrator shall not 
     publish or adopt public health and safety standards for the 
     protection of the public from releases from radioactive 
     materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the 
     Yucca Mountain site--
       (1) except in accordance with this section; and
       (2) before June 1, 2001.
       (b) Consultation and Reports to Congress.--(1) Not later 
     than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall provide the Commission and the National 
     Academy of Sciences--
       (A) a detailed written comparison of the provisions of the 
     proposed Environmental Protection Standards for Yucca 
     Mountain, Nevada, published in the Federal Register on August 
     27, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 46,975) with the recommendations made 
     by the National Academy of Sciences in its report, Technical 
     Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, pursuant to section 
     801(a)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 
     note); and
       (B) the scientific basis for the proposed rule.
       (2) Not later than April 1, 2001, the Commission and the 
     National Academy of Sciences shall, based on the proposed 
     rule and the information provided by the Administrator under 
     paragraph (1), each submit a report to Congress on whether 
     the proposed rule--
       (A) is consistent with section 801(a)(2) of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note);
       (B) provide a reasonably expectation that the public health 
     and safety and the environment will be adequately protected 
     from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and 
     spent nuclear fuel disposed of in the repository;
       (C) is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific 
     and technical information concerning the need for, and 
     consequences of, the rule; and
       (D) imposes the least burden, consistent with obtaining the 
     regulatory objective of protecting the public health and 
     safety and the environment.
       (3) In the event that either the Commission or the National 
     Academy of Sciences finds that the proposed rule does not 
     meet one or more of the criteria listed in paragraph (2), it 
     shall notify the Administrator not later than April 1, 2001 
     of its finding and the basis for such finding.
       (c) Application of Congressional Review Procedures.--Any 
     final rule promulgated under section 801(a)(1) of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 10141 note) shall be treated as 
     a major rule for purposes of chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and shall be subject to all the requirements and 
     procedures pertaining to a major rule in such chapter.
       (d) Capacity.--Section 114(d) of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10134(d)) is amended by striking ``The 
     Commission decision approving the first such application . . 
     .'' through the period at the end of the sentence.

     SEC. 104. NUCLEAR WASTE FEE.

       The last sentence of section 302(a)(4) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)(4)) is amended to read 
     as follows: ``The adjusted fee proposed by the Secretary 
     shall be effective upon enactment of a joint resolution or 
     other provision of law specifically approving the adjusted 
     fee.''.

     SEC. 105. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may, upon the request of any 
     person with whom he has entered into a contract under section 
     302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
     10222(a)), enter into a settlement agreement with the 
     contract holder to--
       (1) relieve any harm caused by the Secretary's failure to 
     meet the Department's commitment, or
       (2) settle any legal claims against the United States 
     arising out of such failure.
       (b) Types of Relief.--Pursuant to a settlement agreement 
     entered into under this section, the Secretary may--
       (1) provide spent nuclear fuel storage casks to the 
     contract holder;
       (2) compensate the contract holder for the cost of 
     providing spent nuclear fuel storage at the contract holders' 
     storage facility; or
       (3) provide any combination of the foregoing.
       (c) Scope of Relief.--The Secretary's obligation to provide 
     the relief under subsection (b) shall not exceed the 
     Secretary's obligation to accept delivery of such spent fuel 
     under the terms of the Secretary's contract with such 
     contract holder under section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)), including any 
     otherwise permissible assignment of rights.
       (d) Waiver of Claims.--(1) The Secretary may not enter into 
     a settlement agreement under subsection (a) or (f) or a 
     backup contract under section 102(a) with any contract holder 
     unless the contract holder--
       (A) notifies the Secretary within 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act of its intent to enter into a 
     settlement negotiations, and
       (B) as part of such settlement agreement or backup 
     contract, waives any claim for damages against the United 
     States arising out of the Secretary's failure to begin 
     disposing of such person's high-level waste or spent nuclear 
     fuel by January 31, 1998.
       (2) Nothing in this subsection shall be read to require a 
     contract holder to waive any future claim against the United 
     States arising out of the Secretary's failure to meet any new 
     obligation assumed under a settlement agreement or backup 
     storage agreement, including any obligation related to the 
     movement of spent fuel by the Department.
       (e) Source of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 302(d) of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)), the 
     Secretary may not make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund for any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary 
     pursuant to a settlement agreement or backup storage contract 
     under this Act except--
       (1) the cost of acquiring and loading spent nuclear fuel 
     casks;
       (2) the cost of transporting spent nuclear fuel from the 
     contract holder's site to the repository; and
       (3) any other cost incurred by the Secretary required to 
     perform a settlement agreement or backup storage contract 
     that would have been incurred by the Secretary under the 
     contracts entered into under section 302(a) of the Nuclear 
     Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) notwithstanding 
     their amendment pursuant to this Act.
       (f) Reactor Demonstration Program.--(1) Not later than 120 
     days after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy 
     Amendments Act of 2000, and notwithstanding Section 302(a)(5) 
     of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 
     10222(a)(5)), the Secretary is authorized to take title to 
     the spent nuclear fuel withdrawn from the demonstration 
     reactor remaining from the Cooperative Power Reactor 
     Demonstration Program (Pub. L. No. 87-315, Sec. 109, 75 Stat. 
     679), the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water 
     Reactor. Immediately upon the Secretary's taking title to the 
     Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor 
     spent nuclear fuel, the Secretary shall assume all 
     responsibility and liability for the interim storage and 
     permanent disposal thereof and is authorized to compensate 
     Dairyland Power Cooperative for any costs related to 
     operating and maintaining facilities necessary for such 
     storage, from the date of taking title until the Secretary 
     removes the spent nuclear fuel from the Dairyland Power 
     Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor site. The 
     Secretary's obligation to take title or compensate the holder 
     of the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water 
     Reactor spent nuclear fuel under this subsection shall 
     include all of such fuel, regardless of the delivery 
     commitment schedule for such fuel under the Secretary's 
     contract with the Dairyland Power Cooperative as the contract 
     holder under Section 302(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
     of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(a)) or the acceptance schedule for 
     such fuel under section 106 of this Act.
       (2) As a condition to the Secretary's taking of title to 
     the Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water 
     Reactor spent nuclear fuel, the contract holder for such fuel 
     shall enter into a settlement agreement containing a waiver 
     of claims against the United States as provided in this 
     section.
       (g) Savings Clause.--(1) Nothing in this section shall 
     limit the Secretary's existing

[[Page 1050]]

     authority to enter into settlement agreements or address 
     shutdown reactors and any associated public health and safety 
     or environmental concerns that may arise.
       (2) Nothing in this Act diminishes obligations imposed upon 
     the Federal Government by the United States District Court of 
     Idaho in an order entered on October 17, 1995 in United 
     States v. Batt (No. 91-0054-S-EJL). To the extent this Act 
     imposes obligations on the Federal Government that are 
     greater than those imposed by the court order, the provisions 
     of this Act shall prevail.

     SEC. 106. ACCEPTANCE SCHEDULE.

       (a) Priority Ranking.--Acceptance priority ranking shall be 
     determined by the Department's ``Acceptance Priority 
     Ranking'' report.
       (b) Acceptance Rate.--As soon as practicable after 
     construction authorization, but no later than eighteen months 
     after the year of issuance of a license to receive and 
     possess spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
     under section 101(c), the Secretary's total acceptance rate 
     for all spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste shall be a 
     rate no less than the following as measured in metric tons 
     uranium (MTU), assuming that each high-level waste canister 
     contains 0.5 MTU: 500 MTU in year 1, 700 MTU in year 2, 1,300 
     MTU in year 3, 2,100 MTU in year 4, 3,100 MTU in year 5, 
     3,300 MTU in years 6, 7, and 8, 3,400 MTU in years 9 through 
     24, and 3,900 MTU in year 25 and thereafter.
       (c) Other Acceptances.--Subject to the conditions contained 
     in the license to receive and possess spent nuclear fuel and 
     high-level radioactive waste issued under section 101(c), of 
     the amounts provided for in paragraph (b) for each year, not 
     less than one-sixth shall be--
       (1) spent nuclear fuel or civilian high-level radioactive 
     waste of domestic origin from civilian nuclear power reactors 
     that have permanently ceased operation on or before the date 
     of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 
     2000;
       (2) spent nuclear fuel from foreign research reactors, as 
     necessary to promote nonproliferation activities; and
       (3) spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste 
     from research and atomic energy defense activities, including 
     spent nuclear fuel from naval reactors:
     Provided, however, That the Secretary shall accept not less 
     than 7.5 percent of the total quantity of fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste accepted in any year from the categories of 
     radioactive materials described in paragraphs (2) and (3) in 
     subsection (c). If sufficient amounts of radioactive 
     materials are not available to utilize this allocation, the 
     Secretary shall allocate this acceptance capacity to other 
     contract holders.
       (d) Effect on Schedule.--The contractual acceptance 
     schedule shall not be modified in any way as a result of the 
     Secretary's acceptance of any material other than contract 
     holders' spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
       (e) Multi-Year Shipping Campaigns.--Consistent with the 
     acceptance schedule, the Secretary shall, in conjunction with 
     contract holders, define a specified multi-year period for 
     each shipping campaign and establish criteria under which the 
     Secretary could accept contract holders' cumulative 
     allocations of spent nuclear fuel during the campaign period 
     at one time and thereby enhance the efficiency and cost-
     effectiveness of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste 
     acceptance.

     SEC. 107. INITIAL LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) Conveyances of Public Lands.--One hundred and twenty 
     days after enactment, all right, title and interest of the 
     United States in the property described in subsection (b), 
     and improvements thereon, together with all necessary 
     easements for utilities and ingress and egress to such 
     property, including, but not limited to, the right to improve 
     those easements, are conveyed by operation of law to the 
     County of Nye, County of Lincoln, or the City of Caliente, 
     Nevada, unless the county notifies the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the head of such other appropriate agency in 
     writing within 60 days of such date that it elects not to 
     take title to all or any part of the property, except that 
     any lands conveyed to the County of Nye under this subsection 
     that are subject to a Federal grazing permit or lease or a 
     similar federally granted permit or lease shall be conveyed 
     between 60 and 120 days of the earliest time the Federal 
     agency administering or granting the permit or lease would be 
     able to legally terminate such right under the statutes and 
     regulations existing at the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless Nye County and the affected holder of the permit or 
     lease negotiate an agreement that allows for an earlier 
     conveyance.
       (b) Special Conveyances.--Subject to valid existing rights 
     and notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the head of the other appropriate agency shall 
     convey:
       (1) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public 
     lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on 
     file with the Secretary:
       Map 1: Proposed Pahrump Industrial Park Site
       Map 2: Proposed Lathrop Wells (Gate 510) Industrial Park 
     Site
       Map 3: Pahrump Landfill Sites
       Map 4: Amargosa Valley Regional Landfill Site
       Map 5: Amargosa Valley Municipal Landfill Site
       Map 6: Beatty Landfill/Transfer Station Site
       Map 7: Round Mountain Landfill Site
       Map 8: Tonopah Landfill Site
       Map 9: Gabbs Landfill Site.
       (2) To the County of Nye, Nevada, the following public 
     lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on 
     file with the Secretary:
       Map 1: Beatty
       Map 2: Ione/Berlin
       Map 3: Manhattan
       Map 4: Round Mountain/Smoky Valley
       Map 5: Tonopah
       Map 6: Armargosa Valley
       Map 7: Pahrump.
       (3) To the County of Lincoln, Nevada, the following public 
     lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on 
     file with the Secretary:
       Map 2: Lincoln County, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site, 
     Jointly with the City of Caliente
       Map 3: Lincoln County, Parcels F and G, Mixed Use, 
     Industrial Sites
       Map 4: Lincoln County, Parcels H and I, Mixed Use and 
     Airport Expansion Sites
       Map 5: Lincoln County, Parcels J and K, Mixed Use, Airport 
     and Landfill Expansion Sites
       Map 6: Lincoln County, Parcels E and L, Mixed Use, Airport 
     and Industrial Expansion Sites.
       (4) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public 
     lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on 
     file with the Secretary:
       Map 1: City of Caliente, Parcels A, B, C and D, Community 
     Growth, Landfill Expansion and Community Recreation Sites
       Map 2: City of Caliente, Parcel M, Industrial Park Site, 
     Jointly with Lincoln County.
       (5) To the City of Caliente, Nevada, the following public 
     lands depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2000, and on 
     file with the Secretary:
       Map 1: City of Caliente, Industrial Park Site Expansion.
       (c) Construction.--The maps and legal descriptions of 
     special conveyance referred to in subsection (b) shall have 
     the same force and effect as if they were included in this 
     Act. The Secretary may correct clerical and typographical 
     errors in the maps and legal descriptions and make minor 
     adjustments in the boundaries of the sites.
       (d) Evidence of Title Transfer.--Upon the request of the 
     County of Lincoln or the County of Nye, Nevada, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall provide evidence of title transfer.
       (e) Consent.--(1) The acceptance or use of any of the 
     benefits provided under this title by any affected unit of 
     local government shall not be deemed to be an expression of 
     consent, express or implied, either under the Constitution of 
     the State of Nevada or any law thereof, to the siting of the 
     repository in the State of Nevada, any provision of such 
     Constitution or laws to the contrary notwithstanding.
       (2) Arguments.--Neither the United States nor any other 
     entity may assert any argument based on legal or equitable 
     estoppel, or acquiescence, or waiver, or consensual 
     involvement, in response to any decision by the State of 
     Nevada, to oppose the siting in Nevada of the repository 
     premised upon or related to the acceptance or use of benefits 
     under this title.
       (3) Liability.--No liability of any nature shall accrue to 
     be asserted against the State of Nevada, its Governor, any 
     official thereof, or any official of any governmental unit 
     thereof, premised solely upon the acceptance or use of 
     benefits under this title.

                        TITLE II--TRANSPORTATION

     SEC. 201. TRANSPORTATION.

       Section 180 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 
     U.S.C. 10175) is amended to read as follows:


                            ``transportation

       ``Sec. 180. (a) In General.--The transportation of spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from any 
     civilian nuclear power reactor to any other civilian nuclear 
     power reactor or to any Department of Energy Facility, by or 
     for the Secretary, or by or for any person who owns or 
     generates spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste, 
     shall be subject to licensing and regulation by the 
     Commission and the Secretary of Transportation under all 
     applicable provisions of existing law.
       ``(1) Preferred shipping routes.--The Secretary shall 
     select and cause to be used preferred shipping routes for the 
     transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high level 
     radioactive waste from each shipping origin to the repository 
     in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of Transportation under authority of the Hazardous 
     Materials Transportation Act (chapter 51 of title 49, United 
     State Code) and by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 
     authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et 
     seq.).
       ``(2) State rerouting.--For purposes of this section, a 
     preferred route shall be an Interstate System highway for 
     which an alternative route is not designated by a State 
     routing agency, or a State-designated route

[[Page 1051]]

     designated by a State routing agency pursuant to section 
     397.103 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(b) Shipping Containers.--No spent nuclear fuel or high-
     level radioactive waste may be transported by or for the 
     Secretary under this Act except in packages--
       ``(1) the design of which has been certified by the 
     Commission; and
       ``(2) that have been determined by the Commission to 
     satisfy its quality assurance requirements.
       ``(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall provide advance 
     notification to States and Indian tribes through whose 
     jurisdiction the Secretary plans to transport spent nuclear 
     fuel or high-level radioactive waste.
       ``(d) Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) States and indian tribes.--As provided in paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary shall provide technical assistance and 
     funds to States and Indian tribes for training of public 
     safety officials or appropriate units of State, local, and 
     tribal government. A State shall allocate to local 
     governments within the State a portion of any funds that the 
     Secretary provides to the State for technical assistance and 
     funding.
       ``(B) Employee organizations.--The Secretary shall provide 
     technical assistance and funds for training directly to 
     nonprofit employee organizations, voluntary emergency 
     response organizations, and joint labor-management 
     organizations that demonstrate experience in implementing and 
     operating worker health and safety training and education 
     programs and demonstrate the ability to reach and involve in 
     training programs target populations of workers who are or 
     will be directly engaged in the transportation of spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste or emergency 
     response or post-emergency response with respect to such 
     transportation.
       ``(C) Training.--Training under this section--
       ``(i) shall cover procedures required for safe routine 
     transportation of materials and procedures for dealing with 
     emergency response situations;
       ``(ii) shall be consistent with any training standards 
     established by the Secretary of Transportation under 
     subsection (h); and
       ``(iii) shall include--

       ``(I) a training program applicable to persons responsible 
     for responding to emergency situations occurring during the 
     removal and transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-
     level radioactive waste;
       ``(II) instruction of public safety officers in procedures 
     for the command and control of the response to any incident 
     involving the waste; and
       ``(III) instruction of radiological protection and 
     emergency medical personnel in procedures for responding to 
     an incident involving spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
     radioactive waste being transported.

       ``(2) No shipments if no training.--
       ``(A) There shall be no shipments by the Secretary of spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste through the 
     jurisdiction of any State or the reservation lands of any 
     Indian tribe eligible for grants under paragraph (3)(B) to 
     the repository until the Secretary has made a determination 
     that personnel in all State, local, and tribal jurisdictions 
     on primary and alternative shipping routes have met 
     acceptable standards of training for emergency responses to 
     accidents involving spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste, as established by the Secretary, and 
     unless technical assistance and funds to implement procedures 
     for the safe routine transportation and for dealing with 
     emergency response situations under paragraph (1)(A) have 
     been available to a State or Indian tribe for at least 3 
     years prior to any shipment: Provided, however, That the 
     Secretary may ship spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste if technical assistance or funds have not 
     been made available because of--
       ``(i) an emergency, including the sudden and unforeseen 
     closure of a highway or rail line or the sudden and 
     unforeseen need to remove spent fuel from a reactor because 
     of an accident, or
       ``(ii) the refusal to accept technical assistance by a 
     State or Indian tribe, or
       ``(iii) fraudulent actions which violate Federal law 
     governing the expenditure of Federal funds.
       ``(B) In the event the Secretary is required to transport 
     spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste through a 
     jurisdiction prior to 3 years after the provision of 
     technical assistance or funds to such jurisdiction, the 
     Secretary shall, prior to such shipment, hold meetings in 
     each State and Indian reservation through which the shipping 
     route passes in order to present initial shipment plans and 
     receive comments. Department of Energy personnel trained in 
     emergency response shall escort each shipment. Funds and all 
     Department of Energy training resources shall be made 
     available to States and Indian tribes along the shipping 
     route no later than three months prior to the commencement of 
     shipments: Provided, however, That in no event shall such 
     shipments exceed 1,000 metric tons per year: Provided 
     further, That no such shipments shall be conducted more than 
     four years after the effective date of the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--To implement this section, the Secretary 
     may make expenditures from the Nuclear Waste Fund to the 
     extent provided for in appropriation Acts.
       ``(B) Grants for development of plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall make a grant of at 
     least $150,000 to each State through the jurisdiction of 
     which and each federally recognized Indian tribe through the 
     reservation lands of which one or more shipments of spent 
     nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will be made 
     under this Act for the purpose of developing a plan to 
     prepare for such shipments.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--A grant shall be made under clause (i) 
     only to a State or a federally recognized Indian tribe that 
     has the authority to respond to incidents involving shipments 
     of hazardous material.
       ``(C) Grants for implementation of plans.--
       ``(i) In general.--Annual implementation grants shall be 
     made to States and Indian tribes that have developed a plan 
     to prepare for shipments under this Act under subparagraph 
     (B). The Secretary, in submitting the annual departmental 
     budget to Congress for funding of implementation grants under 
     this section, shall be guided by the State and tribal plans 
     developed under subparagraph (B). As part of the Department 
     of Energy's annual budget request, the Secretary shall report 
     to Congress on--

       ``(I) the funds requested by States and federally 
     recognized Indian tribes to implement this subsection;
       ``(II) the amount requested by the President for 
     implementation; and
       ``(III) the rationale for any discrepancies between the 
     amounts requested by States and federally recognized Indian 
     tribes and the amounts requested by the President.

       ``(ii) Allocation.--Of funds available for grants under 
     this subparagraph for any fiscal year--

       ``(I) 25 percent shall be allocated by the Secretary to 
     ensure minimum funding and program capability levels in all 
     States and Indian tribes based on plans developed under 
     subparagraph (B); and
       ``(II) 75 percent shall be allocated to States and Indian 
     tribes in proportion to the number of shipment miles that are 
     projected to be made in total shipments under this Act 
     through each jurisdiction.

       ``(4) Availability of funds for shipments.--Funds under 
     paragraph (1) shall be provided for shipments to a 
     repository, regardless of whether the repository is operated 
     by a private entity or by the Department of Energy.
       ``(5) Minimizing duplication of effort and expenses.--The 
     Secretaries of Transportation, Labor, and Energy, Directors 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and National 
     Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission, and Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall review periodically, with the head of 
     each department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     Government, all emergency response and preparedness training 
     programs of that department, agency, or instrumentality to 
     minimize duplication of effort and expense of the department, 
     agency, or instrumentality in carrying out the programs and 
     shall take necessary action to minimize duplication.
       ``(e) Public Information.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     program, in cooperation with corridor States and tribes, to 
     inform the public regarding the transportation of spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, with an 
     emphasis on those States, units of local government, and 
     Indian tribes through whose jurisdiction the Secretary plans 
     to transport substantial amounts of spent nuclear fuel or 
     high-level radioactive waste.
       ``(f) Use of Private Carriers.--The Secretary, in providing 
     for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste under this Act, shall contract with private 
     industry to the fullest extent possible in each aspect of 
     such transportation. The Secretary shall use direct Federal 
     services for such transportation only upon a determination by 
     the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the 
     Secretary, that private industry is unable or unwilling to 
     provide such transportation services at a reasonable cost.
       ``(g) Compliance With Transportation Regulations.--Any 
     person that transports spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
     radioactive waste under the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments 
     Act of 2000, pursuant to a contract with the Secretary, shall 
     comply with all requirements governing such transportation 
     issued by the Federal, State and local governments, and 
     Indian tribes, in the same way and to the same extent that 
     any person engaging in that transportation that is in or 
     affects interstate commerce must comply with such 
     requirements, as required by section 5126 of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       ``(h) Employee Protection.--Any person engaged in the 
     interstate commerce of spent nuclear fuel or high-level 
     radioactive waste under contract to the Secretary pursuant to 
     this Act shall be subject to and comply fully with the 
     employee protection provisions of section 20109 of title 49, 
     United States Code (in the case of employees of railroad 
     carriers) and section 31105 of title 49, United

[[Page 1052]]

     States Code (in the case of employees operating commercial 
     motor vehicles), or the Commission (in the case of all other 
     employees).
       ``(i) Training Standard.--
       ``(1) Regulation.--No later than 12 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 
     2000, the Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to authority 
     under other provisions of law, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Labor and the Commission, shall promulgate a 
     regulation establishing training standards applicable to 
     workers directly involved in the removal and transportation 
     of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 
     regulation shall specify minimum training standards 
     applicable to workers, including managerial personnel. The 
     regulation shall require that the employer possess evidence 
     of satisfaction of the applicable training standard before 
     any individual may be employed in the removal and 
     transportation of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste.
       ``(2) Secretary of transportation.--If the Secretary of 
     Transportation determines, in promulgating the regulation 
     required by paragraph (1), that existing Federal regulations 
     establish adequate training standards for workers, then the 
     Secretary of Transportation can refrain from promulgating 
     additional regulations with respect to worker training in 
     such activities. The Secretary of Transportation and the 
     Commission shall, by Memorandum of Understanding, ensure 
     coordination of worker training standards and to avoid 
     duplicative regulation.
       ``(3) Training standards content.--(A) If training 
     standards are required to be promulgated under paragraph (1), 
     such standards shall, among other things deemed necessary and 
     appropriate by the Secretary of Transportation, provide for--
       ``(i) a specified minimum number of hours of initial 
     offsite instruction and actual field experience under the 
     direct supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor;
       ``(ii) a requirement that onsite managerial personnel 
     receive the same training as workers, and a minimum number of 
     additional hours of specialized training pertinent to their 
     managerial responsibilities; and
       (iii) a training program applicable to persons responsible 
     for responding to and cleaning up emergency situations 
     occurring during the removal and transportation of spent 
     nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
       ``(B) The Secretary of Transportation may specify an 
     appropriate combination of knowledge, skills, and prior 
     training to fulfill the minimum number of hours requirements 
     of clauses (i) and (ii).
       ``(4) Emergency responder training standards.--The training 
     standards for persons responsible for responding to emergency 
     situations occurring during the removal and transportation of 
     spent nuclear and high-level radioactive waste shall, in 
     accordance with existing regulations, ensure their ability to 
     protect nearby persons, property, or the environment from the 
     effects of accidents involving spent nuclear fuel and high-
     level radioactive waste.
       ``(5) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation, from general 
     revenues, such sums as may be necessary to perform his duties 
     under this subsection.''.

     TITLE III--DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STRATEGY

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

       (a) Prior to permanent closure of the geologic repository 
     in Yucca Mountain, Congress must determine whether the spent 
     fuel in the repository should be treated as waste subject to 
     permanent burial or should be considered an energy resource 
     that is needed to meet future energy requirements.
       (b) Future use of nuclear energy may require construction 
     of a second geologic repository unless Yucca Mountain can 
     safely accommodate additional spent fuel. Improved spent fuel 
     strategies may increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain.
       (c) Prior to construction of any second permanent geologic 
     repository, the nation's current plans for permanent burial 
     of spent fuel should be re-evaluated.

     SEC. 302. OFFICE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL RESEARCH.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established an Office 
     of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research within the Office of Nuclear 
     Energy Science and Technology of the Department of Energy. 
     The Office shall be headed by the Associate Director, who 
     shall be a member of the Senior Executive Service appointed 
     by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and 
     Technology, and compensated at a rate determined by 
     applicable law.
       (b) Associate Director.--The Associate Director of the 
     Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research shall be responsible 
     for carrying out an integrated research, development, and 
     demonstration program on technologies for treatment, 
     recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear radioactive 
     waste and spent nuclear fuel, subject to the general 
     supervision of the Secretary. The Associate Director of the 
     Office shall report to the Director of the Office of Nuclear 
     Energy Science and Technology. The first such Associate 
     Director shall be appointed within 90 days of the enactment 
     of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000.
       (c) Grant and Contract Authority.--In carrying out his 
     responsibilities under this section, the Secretary may make 
     grants, or enter into contracts, for the purposes of the 
     research projects and activities described in (d)(2).
       (d) Duties.--(1) The Associate Director of the Office shall 
     involve national laboratories, universities, the commercial 
     nuclear industry, and other organizations to investigate 
     technologies for the treatment, recycling, and disposal of 
     spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
       (2) The Associate Director of the Office shall--
       (A) develop a research plan to provide recommendations by 
     2015;
       (B) identify promising technologies for the treatment, 
     recycling, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
     radioactive waste;
       (C) conduct research and development activities for 
     promising technologies;
       (D) ensure that all activities include as key objectives 
     minimization of proliferation concerns and risk to the health 
     of the general public or site workers, as well as development 
     of cost-effective technologies;
       (E) require research on both reactor- and accelerator-based 
     transmutation systems;
       (F) require research on advanced processing and 
     separations;
       (G) ensure that research efforts with this Office are 
     coordinated with research on advanced fuel cycles and 
     reactors conducted within the Office of Nuclear Energy 
     Science and Technology.
       (e) Report.--The Associate Director of the Office of Spent 
     Nuclear Fuel Research shall annually prepare and submit a 
     report to the Congress on the activities and expenditures of 
     the Office that discusses progress being made in achieving 
     the objectives of subsection (b).

                  TITLE IV--GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 401. DECOMMISSIONING PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish a Decommissioning Pilot Program to decommission and 
     decontaminate the sodium-cooled fast breeder experimental 
     test-site reactor located in northwest Arkansas.
       (b) Funding.--No funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund may be 
     used for the Decommissioning Pilot Program.

     SEC. 402. REPORTS.

       (a) The Secretary is directed to report within 90 days from 
     enactment of this Act regarding all alternatives available to 
     Northern States Power Company and the Federal Government 
     which would allow Northern States Power Company to operate 
     the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant until the end of 
     the term of its current Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
     licenses, assuming existing State and Federal laws remain 
     unchanged.
       (b) Within six months of enactment of this Act, the General 
     Accounting Office is directed to report back to the Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House 
     Committee on Commerce on the potential economic impacts to 
     Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and 
     Michigan ratepayers should the Prairie Island Nuclear 
     Generating Plant cease operations once it has met its State-
     imposed storage limitation, including the costs of new 
     generation, decommissioning costs, and the costs of continued 
     operation of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel storage.

     SEC. 403. SEPARABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be 
     invalid, the remainder of this Act, or the application of 
     such provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected 
     thereby.

     SEC. 404. FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY.

       Any spent nuclear fuel associated with the Fast Flux Test 
     Facility at the Hanford Reservation shall be transported and 
     stored at the repository site as soon as practicable after 
     the Commission has authorized the construction of the 
     repository.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I certainly want to accommodate the 
Senator from Massachusetts. I would

[[Page 1053]]

like to take a moment to thank some of the people who have worked on 
this legislation.
  I take this opportunity to, first of all, compliment the professional 
staff who prepared a good deal of the material for the debate we just 
concluded. Andrew Lundquist, who is pretty much the general on the 
Energy Committee as the chief of staff of the Energy Committee, worked 
very hard. He had a little difficulty because his wife had a baby in 
the middle of the debate--a little girl, who joins three young 
brothers. But I do thank Andrew.
  Colleen Deegan, who is on my right, we would not have been able to 
get as far as we had without her. Other committee staff who helped or 
others who did not create too many problems are Kelly Johnson, Kristin 
Phillips, Bryan Hannigan, David Dye, Betty Nevitt, Jim Beirne--who sat 
here an extended period of time--and Bob Simon and Sam Fowler from the 
minority. The departed staff member who worked on this for about 5 
years is Karen Hunsicker, who worked on it until the end of last year.
  While Senator Bingaman and I could not agree to resolve all the 
issues, I compliment him and his staff for working to try to reach an 
accord on the issue.
  I think it is unfortunate we could not bring the administration 
aboard in a responsible manner, either taking title or without taking 
title. It is clear this matter will not be resolved on the watch of the 
Clinton administration. I suspect the Vice President's attitude on this 
should be known by the public as the campaign progresses.
  But nevertheless, I thank my two colleagues from Nevada for the 
manner in which they nobly represented the interests of their State. 
That is very important around here. As they know, Senator Stevens and I 
have often tried to convince this body that those of us who are elected 
from an individual State really have the best interests of that State 
at heart. For the most part, the Members I think should be very 
sensitive of that fact. That was evidenced in the vote today.
  I would like to make one assumption, that where we ended up is where 
we ended up the last time on this. Although Senator McCain was not 
here, we can assume he would have voted with us.
  Mr. REID. Senator Kennedy was not here.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Of course, Senator Kennedy was not here.
  While there were a few changes, we ended up just about where we were 
the last time. As far as I am concerned, this matter has to rest with 
the administration for a solution. The Senator from Alaska will not be 
banging his head against the door to try to solve this Nation's nuclear 
waste problem until we get from the administration a program that 
suggests they are going to address the problem with a resolve.
  Again, I thank all of those who were involved in the debate. I wish 
you all a good day as we lament on the reality of this last vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the recognition, but I do not 
want to deprive the Senator from Nevada speaking if he wants a brief 
moment to follow up.
  How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mr. BRYAN. If the good Senator would yield for a minute?
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield for 1 
minute to the Senator and that then the floor would be returned to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  I wish to respond to the gracious statement by the chairman of the 
Energy Committee. Although we have had strong differences on this 
issue, the differences have been professional, not personal. He has 
been very professional in the way in which he has handled this matter. 
He has extended us every courtesy. I appreciate that. I think his 
conduct and deportment reflect the highest traditions of the Senate. I 
publicly acknowledge that. Even though, in combat, we were forceful in 
our advocacy, as was he, this is something that is intensely personal 
to us. The Senator understands that. But I do thank him very much for 
his graciousness and professionalism.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________