[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10755-10756]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     STATUS OF OUR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak today on the status 
of our nuclear industry in this country and the realization that it is 
time that the U.S. Senate resolve the question of what to do with the 
high-level waste that is generated by our nuclear reactors generating 
power throughout this Nation.
  What would you think of the Federal Government's response to entering 
into a contract to take the high-level nuclear waste in 1998, and, 1998 
having come and gone, the ratepayers who receive nuclear power into 
their homes have paid somewhere in the area of $11 billion to the 
Federal Government to take that waste in 1998?
  As we all know, 1998 has come and gone. The sanctity of the 
contractual relationship between the Government and the nuclear 
industry, obviously, has been ignored by our Government. As a 
consequence, there is potential litigation--litigation that has arisen 
as a consequence of the nonfulfilling of the contractual arrangement 
that was entered into to take the waste. So, clearly, we have a 
responsibility that is long overdue.
  Some people, relatively speaking, are inclined to ignore the 
contribution of the nuclear industry in our Nation. It provides our 
country with about 21 percent of the total power generation. It is 
clean energy. There are no emissions. The problems, of course, are what 
to do with the high-level waste.
  Other nations have proceeded with technology. The French reprocess. 
They recover the plutonium from the almost-spent nuclear rods. They 
reinject plutonium into a mixture that is added into the reactors and, 
basically, burn as part of the process of generating energy.
  The Japanese have proceeded with a similar technology. The rods, 
after they are taken out of the reactors, are basically clipped in the 
process of the centrifugal development, while the plutonium is 
recovered. It is mixed with enriched uranium, and it is put back in the 
reactors. The waste that does occur is basically stored in a glass form 
called vitrification.
  We have chosen not to proceed with that type of technology, and I 
believe ultimately we will change our policy and, indeed, recover the 
high-level waste that is associated with the rods.
  In any event, we are faced with the reality that we are derelict in 
responding to the contractual commitments into which we entered. We 
have before us a situation where this body is going to have to come to 
grips with the disposition of what to do with that waste.
  The House has already acted. On June 6 of this year, the Senate 
Energy Committee, by a vote of 14 to 10, favorably reported S.J. Res. 
34, which is the Yucca Mountain siting resolution. The resolution 
approves our President's recommendation to Congress that the Nation's 
permanent deep geological storage site for spent nuclear fuel and other 
radioactive waste be located at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada.
  What the resolution does not do is build a repository. It merely 
selects the site, and approval of the resolution would start the 
Department of Energy on the licensing process.
  This is a long-awaited step forward in the process to develop this 
Nation's long-term geologic repository for high-level radioactive 
waste. In making the decision, President Bush relied on the 
recommendation of Secretary of Energy Abraham and on two decades of 
science that has found, in the words of one Department of Energy 
assessment, ``no showstoppers.'' This is not something that has just 
come up. We have been at it for 20 years.
  The vote last month in the House was 306 to 117. As I indicated, the 
House has done its job. It affirmed the exceptional science, 
engineering, and public policy work that has gone into this very 
important national project. It reached a conclusion, exactly as I 
indicated earlier. Now it is the Senate's turn to vote on the 
resolution.
  The 20 years of work, the over $4 billion that has been invested in 
determining whether this site is scientifically and technically 
suitable for the development of a repository is a reality to which the 
taxpayers have already been subjected; $4 billion has been expended at 
Yucca Mountain. I personally visited the site, and I can tell you that 
for all practical purposes, the site is ready.
  For those who suggest we put this off, let me again remind my 
colleagues, we have not made this decision in haste. It has been 20 
years in the process. In fact, the most recent independent review done 
by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in January of this year 
found, one, ``No individual, technical, or scientific factor has been 
identified that would automatically eliminate Yucca Mountain from 
consideration as a site of a permanent repository.''
  I am confident in the work done to date by the Department of Energy, 
but this work will not cease with this recommendation. On the contrary, 
scientific investigation and analysis will continue for the life of the 
repository, and I believe that sound science and sound policy guide 
this decision. For over 20 years, we have relied on science to guide 
us, and now that science says this site is suitable.
  I am often reminded how these things are resolved, and while it is 
appropriate to have public input, this is an area of technology in 
which we really need sound science and not emotional discussions or 
arguments. We have created this waste. We have to address it. Nobody 
wants it. Somebody has to have it. The Yucca Mountain site has been 
determined as the best site, and the science supports it.

[[Page 10756]]

  In fact, the review board addressed the very issue of science vis-a-
vis policy and concluded that the ultimate decision on Yucca Mountain 
is one of policy and informed science. Policy decisions lie with our 
elected officials. That is why we are here, Madam President. We base 
them on sound science and facts, of course, but ultimately, we have to 
make the tough calls. We cannot vote maybe; we can only vote yes or no.
  The Secretary has acted. The President has acted. The House of 
Representatives has acted. Now the Senate must act. Nevada exercised 
its opportunity to object to actions taken by the Federal Government. 
That is their right as granted by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  It should be pointed out that the veto authority given to the State 
of Nevada is rather unusual. A Governor of a State was able to veto a 
decision of a sitting President--indeed extraordinary--but now it is 
time for the Senate to act, and it is our obligation, indeed our duty, 
because some decisions, tough as they are, need to be made with the 
good of the entire Nation in mind.
  I should also point out that when the act was considered in 1982, the 
question of a State veto was somewhat controversial. The subsequent 
votes of both the House and Senate outlined very specifically the 
necessary balance to this State veto. If Congress is not permitted to 
act, as some have threatened in the Senate, then that carefully crafted 
balance will be lost. I wish the State of Alaska had been given an 
opportunity for a veto on the issue of ANWR. Nevertheless, that is a 
different issue for a different time.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act anticipated that this would be a tough 
decision and laid out some very strict, fast-track procedure to ensure 
that the decision would be put to a vote so that the will of the 
majority would be heard. This is one of those rare cases when Congress 
made the decision to not allow procedural games to obscure the 
substance of a very important decision. We will have to vote sometime 
before July 27 of this year, governed by certain rules on S.J. Res. 34, 
and a decision will be made, Madam President. That is the procedure 
that Congress decided back in 1982. We must make this decision, and we 
will make it soon.
  The Federal Government has a contractual obligation to take the 
Nation's spent fuel. That obligation, as I indicated in my earlier 
remarks, was due in 1998. That was a contractual commitment. The 
Federal Government is in violation of that contractual commitment. So 
far, no waste has been removed despite the fact that the nuclear waste 
fund now has in excess of $17 billion for the specific purpose of 
taking the waste.
  If the spent fuel is not taken soon, at least one reactor, the 
Prairie Island reactor in Minnesota, will have to shut down, and we 
cannot afford to sacrifice nuclear power, not in Minnesota nor, for 
that matter, anywhere. Madam President, 21 percent of all power 
generation comes from nuclear energy.
  Other States have spent fuel piling up: 1,860 metric tons in 
California, 1,542 metric tons in Connecticut, and a whopping 5,850 
metric tons in Illinois. We have waste at other sites, including 
Hanford in the State of Washington.
  Nuclear, as I indicated, is 21 percent of the Nation's clean, 
nonemitting electrical energy. Nuclear is safe, solid, baseload 
generation that helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  The Federal Government's obligation does not just extend to 
utilities. We also have a responsibility to continue to clean up our 
cold war legacy. These are Department of Energy weapon sites, several 
throughout the United States, that must be cleaned up. To accomplish 
cleanup, waste must be removed in sites such as Rocky Flats in 
Colorado, Hanford in Washington, Savannah River in South Carolina.
  For a variety of reasons, all based on sound science, we must proceed 
to affirm the President's site designation of Yucca Mountain as one of 
our Nation's safe, central, remote nuclear waste repositories. To 
borrow from Secretary Abraham's February 14 letter to President Bush:
  A repository is important to our national security. A repository is 
important to our nonproliferation objectives. A repository is important 
to our energy security. A repository is important to our homeland 
security. A repository is important to our efforts to protect our 
environment.
  We have a responsibility, Madam President, to site a repository. It 
is an overarching national responsibility. It is one we cannot shirk. 
The alternative would be to leave this waste at 131 sites in over 40 
States--sites which were not designated to be permanent repositories.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Missouri is recognized.

                          ____________________