[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 215-216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to allow the body to 
move forward with regard to the nuclear waste storage bill. More than 
15 years ago, Congress directed the Department of Energy to take 
responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste created by commercial 
nuclear powerplants and our Nation's defense programs. Today, there are 
more than 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel that must be dealt with.
  Quite some time has now passed since DOE was absolutely obligated 
under the NWPA Act of 1982 to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from 
utility sites.
  All across this country, we have sites where nuclear waste products 
are in open pools, cooling pools. Many of those are filling up. A 
number of States have a major problem.
  In my opinion, this is one of the most important environmental issues 
we have to face as a nation. We have to deal with this problem. There 
have been billions of dollars spent on it. There has been time put into 
thinking about the proper way to do it. States all across this country, 
from Vermont to Mississippi to Minnesota to Washington, believe very 
strongly that we need to address this issue.
  Apparently today, DOE is no closer in coming up with a solution. This 
is totally unacceptable. This is, in fact, wrong, so say the Federal 
courts. The law is clear, and DOE has not met its obligation, so the 
Congress must act.
  I am encouraged that Senator Murkowski and his committee have 
addressed the issue and they have come up with a different bill than 
the one we considered the year before last. They have made concessions, 
they have made improvements, and I thought we had a bill that was going 
to be generally overwhelmingly accepted.
  I do think when we get over procedural hurdles, when the final vote 
is taken on this nuclear waste disposal bill, the vote will probably be 
in the high seventies or eighties when it is actually voted on, and 
that is an important point. The Senate will vote by overwhelming 
numbers for this legislation, so we need to move through the process.
  I know there is opposition from the Senators from Nevada, and they 
have to have an opportunity to make their case and offer amendments if 
they feel the need to do so, as well as other Senators. But I think it 
is so important that we cannot allow it to languish any longer. It is a 
bipartisan effort that came out of the committee. It is safe, 
practical, and it is a workable solution for America's spent fuel 
storage needs.
  This is the proper storage of spent fuel, and it is not being done in 
a partisan way. It is dealt with as a safety issue. Where is DOE? Well, 
about where it is always, I guess. What is their solution? If not this, 
what?
  They have not given us any answers or any indications of how they 
would like to proceed with this. All of America's experience in waste 
management over the last 25 years of improving environmental protection 
has taught Congress that safe, effective waste handling practices 
entail using centralized, permitted, and controlled facilities to 
gather and manage accumulated waste.
  I took the time to go to Sweden and France and to meet with officials 
from the private sector in Britain. I looked at how they have dealt 
with their waste problem. They have dealt with it. Sweden has; France 
has; Britain and Japan; but not the United States. Why? We are the most 
developed country in the world, yet we have not dealt with this very 
important issue. So after over 25 years of working with this problem, 
DOE has still not made specific plans.
  The management of used nuclear fuel should capitalize on the 
knowledge and experience we have. Nearly 100 communities have this 
spent fuel sitting in their ``backyards,'' and it needs to be gathered, 
accumulated, and placed in a secure and safe place. This lack of a 
central storage capacity could very possibly cause the closing of 
several nuclear powerplants.
  These affected plants produce nearly 20 percent of America's 
electricity. Closing these plants does not make sense. But if we do not 
do something with the waste, that could be the result.
  Nuclear energy is a significant part of America's energy future and 
must

[[Page 216]]

remain part of the energy mix. America needs nuclear power to maintain 
our secure, reliable, and affordable supplies of electricity. At the 
same time, nuclear power allows the Nation to directly and effectively 
address increasingly stringent air quality requirements.
  I challenge my colleagues in the Chamber, on both sides of the aisle, 
to get this bill done. We spent a lot of time on it the year before 
last. We ran into the blue slip problem with the House. We will not 
have that problem with this bill.
  The citizens in these communities are looking for us to act. The 
nuclear industry had already committed to the Federal Government about 
$15 billion toward building the facility by 1998. The industry has 
continued to pay between $40 and $80 billion in fees for storage of 
this spent fuel.
  It is time for the Federal Government to honor its commitment to the 
American people and to the power community. It is time for the Federal 
Government to protect these 100 communities to ensure that the Federal 
Government meets its commitment to States and electricity consumers. 
The 106th Congress must mandate completion of this program--a program 
that gives the Federal Government title to waste currently stored on-
site at facilities across the Nation, a site for permanent disposal, 
and a transportation infrastructure to safely move the used fuel from 
plants to the storage facility.
  Again, I have had people express concerns to me about how this can be 
done safely. I actually took the time to look at the equipment that is 
used to move this spent fuel in other countries, particularly in 
France, and they have done it safely, without a single incident--no 
problem ever. Again, they are doing it in France. Can't we do it in 
America?
  Our foot dragging is unfortunate. It is unacceptable. Clearly, we 
must move this legislation. The only remedy to stop the delays--and it 
is a timely action--is for the Senate to consider this in the 106th 
Congress.
  Let's move forward and get this legislation done.
  Madam President, I see Senator Reid is here.

                          ____________________