[House Report 107-425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-425

======================================================================



 
                    APPROVAL OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

                                _______
                                

  May 1, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Tauzin, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 87]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) approving the site at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.











                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     6
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     6
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     6
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     6
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     9
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     9
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     9
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Dissenting Views.................................................    10

                          purpose and summary

    The purpose of H.J. Res. 87 is to approve the site at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, in accordance with procedures under section 115 of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).

                  background and need for legislation

    The nation's high-level radioactive waste inventories 
primarily consist of spent nuclear fuel from operating and 
decommissioned commercial nuclear power plants, and spent 
nuclear fuel and high-levelwastes from U.S. government defense 
activities. Approximately 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from 
past and ongoing commercial nuclear power operations are currently 
stored at 72 sites throughout the country. An additional 2,000 metric 
tons of spent nuclear fuel are generated annually by operating nuclear 
power plants. The total amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel is 
expected to reach approximately 60,000 metric tons by the year 2010. 
The U.S. government's high-level radioactive waste inventories are 
stored at five sites nationwide, and include 2,500 metric tons of spent 
fuel from U.S. Naval Operations and defense production activities, 
weapons-usable surplus plutonium, and over 100 million gallons of high-
level radioactive wastes from DOE defense production activities.
    The NWPA established a system for identifying and selecting 
a site for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level radioactive waste, and also created the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) within the 
Department of Energy (DOE) to carry out the program. Pursuant 
to the NWPA amendments of 1987, Congress selected the Yucca 
Mountain site in Nevada as the single site to be characterized 
by DOE for long-term geologic disposal of the nation's high-
level radioactive waste inventories.
    The Yucca Mountain site is located in Nevada on the 
southwest corner of the DOE Nevada Test Site, adjacent to the 
Nellis Air Force range. DOE's environmental impact statement 
and site recommendation to the President set forth 
comprehensive information with respect to the Yucca Mountain 
site and the current plans for the storage of spent nuclear 
fuel and high level radioactive waste there. These documents 
currently envision the disposal of some 70,000 metric tons of 
spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste deep below 
the surface of Yucca Mountain in excavated, interconnecting 
tunnels well above the present day water table. According to 
DOE, the natural features of the mountain, as well as 
engineered barriers including the waste packages, will work in 
concert to isolate radionuclides from the environment for 
thousands of years. Consistent with his recommendation of the 
Yucca Mountain site, the Secretary of DOE testified before the 
Committee that the site location, geologic barriers, and design 
elements for the repository will protect the health and safety 
of the public.
    According to the DOE Total Life Cycle Cost Report for the 
Yucca Mountain site, DOE has already spent $6.7 billion on the 
repository program, and estimates that approximately $50 
billion will be spent during the lifetime of the Yucca Mountain 
project. The NWPA established the Nuclear Waste Fund (the Fund) 
to pay for the costs of characterizing and developing a 
permanent repository. The Fund is derived from fees collected 
from a 1.0 mil per kilowatt-hour assessment on all electricity 
generated by commercial nuclear power plants, as well as 
equivalent assessments on quantities of spent fuel or other 
high level wastes to be disposed of at Yucca Mountain from 
Federal agencies. In return, the Secretary is required to 
accept title, subsequently transport, and dispose of a 
generator's spent fuel and high-level wastes. The NWPA required 
the Secretary to begin disposal of these wastes not later than 
January 31, 1998.
    In December 1998, pursuant to Congressional direction in 
the 1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, the 
Secretary of Energy determined that Yucca Mountain was viable 
for further development as a repository site. Following the 
completion of site characterization activities under section 
113 of the NWPA, and a series of hearings held in the State of 
Nevada required under section 114, on January 10, 2002, the 
Secretary of Energy recommended the development of the Yucca 
Mountain site to the President. On February 15, 2002, the 
President transmitted his recommendation to Congress 
recommending the Yucca Mountain site, based on his decision 
that it is qualified for application for a construction 
authorization for a repository. On April 8, 2002, the Governor 
of the State of Nevada submitted to the Speaker of the House a 
notice of disapproval, and a statement of reasons why the 
Governor disapproved the recommended repository site. Following 
the State of Nevada's disapproval, section 115 of the Act 
provides that the site shall be disapproved unless Congress 
passes a resolution of repository siting approval within 90 
legislative days, and this becomes law. The procedures for 
House consideration of such a resolution are set forth at 
section 115(e) of the NWPA.
    Should a resolution of siting approval be enacted, thereby 
overriding Nevada's disapproval, DOE still cannot begin 
construction activities untilthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) issues a license for construction authorization to DOE. Pursuant 
to section 114, NRC has been reviewing DOE's site investigation 
activities to ensure that adequate information is available for a 
license application. NRC is responsible for enforcing health and safety 
standards through the licensing process that includes the application 
of groundwater protection standards for the Yucca Mountain site 
previously set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Act directs 
NRC to issue a final decision approving or disapproving the application 
within three years, with a possible 12 month extension. NRC will 
continue to oversee repository operations after any license is granted. 
The public will have opportunities during the NRC license review period 
to review, comment, and request hearings on the license application, 
and the Commission's decision will be subject to judicial review. 
Pursuant to NWPA section 114(a)(1)(E), NRC testified that, based on its 
technical reviews and pre-licensing interaction with DOE, it believes 
that sufficient information can be available for a license application.
    As required by the Act, the President's February 15, 2002 
recommendation to Congress was based on the Secretary's 
recommendation and accompanying comprehensive statement. 
Section 114 of the NWPA also required the Secretary to submit a 
final Environmental Impact Assessment that analyzes the impact 
of the proposed action to transport and dispose of radioactive 
wastes at Yucca Mountain. The documents are too voluminous for 
inclusion in this report, but are publicly available through 
DOE's Internet website. Each of these documents may be obtained 
electronically at www.ymp.gov/new/secondpage.htm.

                                hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing 
entitled ``A Review of the President's Recommendation to 
Develop a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada'' 
on April 18, 2002. The Subcommittee received testimony from: 
The Honorable Jim Gibbons, U.S. House of Representatives, The 
Honorable Shelley Berkley, U.S. House of Representatives, The 
Honorable John Ensign, U.S. Senate; The Honorable Spencer 
Abraham, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; The Honorable 
Greta Joy Dicus, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission; The Honorable Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; Dr. Jared L. Cohon, Chairman, Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board; Mrs. Gary Jones, Director, Natural 
Resources and Environment Team, U.S. General Accounting Office; 
The Honorable Laura Chappelle, Chairwoman, Michigan Public 
Service Commission, on behalf of National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners; Mr. Joe F. Colvin, President 
and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Jim Dushaw, Director, 
Utility Department International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers; and, written testimony from Ms. Joan Claybrook, 
President, Public Citizen.

                        committee consideration

    On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Air Quality met in open markup session and approved H.J. Res. 
87, approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the 
development of a repository for the disposal of high-level 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the 
Nuclear Policy Act of 1982 for Full Committee consideration, 
without amendment, by a roll call vote of 24 yeas and 2 nays, a 
quorum being present. On Thursday, April 25, 2002, the Full 
Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.J. Res. 87 
favorably reported to the House by a roll call vote of 41 yeas 
and 6 nays, a quorum being present.

                            committee votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
following is the recorded vote on a motion by Mr. Tauzin to 
order H.J. Res. 87 reported to the House, without amendment, 
including the names of those members voting for and against.


                      committee oversight findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report.

         statement of general performance goals and objectives

    The goal of H.J. Res. 87 is to approve the site at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, in accordance with procedures under section 115 of the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).

   new budget authority, entitlement authority, and tax expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.J. 
Res. 87, approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the 
development of a repository for the disposal of high-level 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the 
Nuclear Policy Act of 1982, would result in no new or increased 
budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or 
revenues.

                        committee cost estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  congressional budget office estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1984:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 87, approving 
the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and 
spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
1982.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lisa Cash 
Driskill (for federal costs) and Elyse Goldman (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                           Steven Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.J. Res. 87--Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the 
        development of a repository for the disposal of high-level 
        radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the 
        Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

    Summary: H.J. Res. 87 would provide Congressional approval 
of the site at Yucca Mountain. Nevada, for the storage of 
nuclear waste. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 
(NWPA), such approval would allow the Department of Energy 
(DOE) to apply for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to construct a nuclear waste storage facility on the 
approved site. Enacting H.J. Res. 87 would not alter the 
contractual relationship between DOE and those electric 
utilities with nuclear power plants to dispose of nuclear waste 
in exchange for the payment of annual fees. The resolution 
would not affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    Congressional approval of the Yucca Mountain site is 
required before DOE can proceed with its plans to spend about 
$10 billion over the next several years to develop the Yucca 
Mountain site and begin receipt of waste in 2010. Based on 
information from DOE, we estimate that implementing H.J. Res. 
87 would require the appropriation of about $12 billion over 
the 2003-2012 period, to pay for licensing, construction, and 
waste transportation activities over that period. All such 
spending is subject to appropriation.
    H.J. Res. 87 could increase the costs that Nevada and some 
local governments would incur to comply with certain existing 
federal requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
is unclear about whether such costs would count as new mandates 
under UMRA. In any event, CBO estimates that the annual direct 
costs incurred by state and local governments over the next 
five years would total significantly less than the threshold 
established in the law ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually 
for inflation). H.J. Res. 87 contains no new private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.J. Res. 87 is shown in the following 
table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
functions 270 (energy) and 050 (defense).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending under current law for nuclear waste
 disposal:
    Budget authority \1\......................        375          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................        366         48          0          0          0          0
Proposed changes:
    Estimated authorization level.............          0        527        900      1,100      1,500      2,000
    Estimated outlays.........................          0        369        788      1,040      1,380      1,450
Spending under H.J. Res. 87 for nuclear waste
 disposal:
    Estimated authorization level \1\.........        375        527        900      1,100      1,500      2,000
    Estimated outlays.........................        366        465        788      1,040      1,380      1,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

    Basis of estimate: If the Congress enacts H.J. Res. 87, DOE 
expects that it would apply for a license to construct a 
storage facility at Yucca Mountain sometime in 2004 and that 
the site would be ready to accept nuclear waste in 2010. The 
Department of Defense and DOE have requested $527 million for 
this program for fiscal year 2003. Based on information 
contained in DOE's May 2001 report, Analysis of the Total 
System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management Program, CBO estimates that implementing the 
resolution would require the appropriation of about $6 billion 
over the 2003-2007 period and about $12 billion over the 2003-
2012 period to prepare the site to dispose of waste. This 
estimate includes program management, licensing, construction, 
and transportation of waste to the site.
    In accordance with the NWPA, on February 15, 2002, the 
President recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, be used for the storage of nuclear waste. Also in 
accordance with the NWPA, on April 9, 2002, the Governor of 
Nevada provided theCongress with a notice of disapproval of the 
site. Following the Governor's disapproval notice, the Congress is now 
deciding whether to enact legislation approving the site. Without such 
legislation, the notice of disapproval would stand, and there would be 
no further consideration of a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca 
Mountain.
    Spending on nuclear waster disposal activities would very 
likely continue in the absence of H.J. Res. 87, but CBO has no 
basis for estimating the likely level of such spending. If H.J. 
Res. 87 were not enacted, spending on the nuclear waste program 
could be higher or lower than shown in the above table, 
depending on how the program might be restructured. If Yucca 
Mountain is not used as a nuclear waster repository, such 
spending might include funding for interim storage, further 
study of alternative disposal sites, or other program options.
    In the May 2001 report, DOE estimates the future cost to 
conduct the nuclear waste program is about $50 billion, in 
constant 2000 dollars, from 2001 through closure and 
decommissioning of Yucca Mountain in 2119. According to DOE, 
about $9 billion has been spent since 1983 studying nuclear 
waste disposal sites and preparing a recommendation for use of 
the Yucca Mountain site.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
While the resolution, by itself, would establish no new 
enforceable duties on state, local, or tribal governments, 
shipments of nuclear waste to the Yucca Mountain site would 
increase costs to the state of Nevada for complying with other 
existing federal requirements. Additional spending by the state 
would support a number of activities, including emergency 
communications, emergency response planning and training, 
inspections, and escort of waste shipments. UMRA is unclear 
about whether such impacts on other existing federal 
requirements would count as new mandates under UMRA. In any 
event, CBO estimates that the annual direct costs incurred by 
state and local governments over the next five years would 
total significantly less than the threshold established in the 
law ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.J. Res. 87 
contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Lisa Cash Driskill; 
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elyse Goldman; 
impact on the private sector: Lauren Marks.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       federal mandates statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several 
States, and with the Indian tribes.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

    Pursuant to section 115(a) of the NWPA, the text resolution 
is as follows: ``That there hereby is approved the site at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to which 
a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the 
State of Nevada on April 8, 2002.'' The text of H.J. Res. 87 is 
taken directly from section 115 of the NWPA, with the three 
blank spaces in the statutory text filled in as follows: (1) 
The first blank space is filled with the name of the geographic 
location of the proposed site of the repository (Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada); (2) The second blank space is filled with 
the State Governor submitting the notice of disapproval (the 
Governor of the State of Nevada); and, (3) The last blank space 
is filled with the date of submission of the notice of 
disapproval (April 8, 2002).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

  DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES MARKEY, CAPPS, ESHOO, PALLONE, 
    HARMON, AND WAXMAN ON H.J. RES. 87 APPROVING THE SITE AT YUCCA 
MOUNTAIN, NEVADA, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPOSITORY FOR THE DISPOSAL 
         OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

    We oppose H.J. Res. 87, approving the site at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the 
disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear 
fuel. The decision to go ahead with licensing Yucca Mountain is 
premature. There exist too many unresolved scientific, security 
and safety issues for us to support moving forward at this 
time.
    The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act originally directed the 
Department of Energy to consider five, geologically different 
sites and to eventually select two repositories--one east of 
the Mississippi and one west. However, in 1987, the act was 
amended for political, not scientific, reasons so that Yucca 
Mountain was the only site that could be studied. H.J. Res. 87 
continues the pattern of trumping science with politics, which 
will inevitably endanger the health and safety of the nation, 
not just the citizens of Nevada.
    The science behind Yucca Mountain fails to assure the 
safety of the site. The independent government Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board recently graded the technical basis for 
DOE's recommendation as ``weak to moderate,'' and said, ``The 
Board has limited confidence in current performance estimates 
generated by the DOE's performance assessment model.'' The 
International Atomic Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency review 
of DOE scientific and technical work found that ``in general, 
the level of understanding of the hydro-geology of the site * * 
* is low, unclear and insufficient to support an assessment of 
the realistic performance.'' Furthermore, a recent General 
Accounting Office report revealed that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has indicated there are 293 complex technical 
issues that the DOE must resolve before it can submit a license 
application to the NRC. Bechtel has indicated that at least 10 
of the 293 technical issues will not even be resolved until 
2004. Some specific concerns include:
     According to the GAO report, NRC's Advisory 
Committee on nuclear waste has raised concerns about the models 
that DOE is using to predict how water and radionuclides might 
travel through the repository and therefore how quickly 
radioactivity would be released into the environment. The 
Advisory Committee believes that DOE has used inconsistent 
assumptions and assumptions that are not supported by 
experimental evidence.
     A 1999 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
study contradicted the assumption that plutonium could not 
migrate in the natural environment by showing that plutonium 
had migrated at the Nevada Test Site in less than 50 years.
     A Los Alamos National Laboratory study 
demonstrated that chlorine--36 ``fingerprints'' of above ground 
nuclear testing have been found in the interior of Yucca 
Mountain, suggesting that water from the surface has migrated 
1000 feet to the repository level of the mountain within 50 
years.
     The DOE has only 2 years worth of corrosion data 
for the canister allow yet they are extrapolating this data to 
10,000 years.
     The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board notes 
that the DOE has not updated its work on radiation exposure to 
reflect new information on how fast the radioactive elements 
are transported. This casts doubts onto their claims that Yucca 
Mountain would meet the Environmental Protection Agency 
standard.
     According to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 
Board, the repository could get as hot as 350 degrees 
Fahrenheit, but the DOE has little data about corrosion of the 
waste canisters over 244 degrees and none above 275 degrees. 
Higher temperatures would most likely speed up corrosion of the 
canisters--but DOE has not even bothered to check.
    In order to transport the tens of thousands of tons of 
highly radioactive nuclear materials and wastes to the 
potentially flawed Yucca Mountain repository, the waste would 
have to bemoved through the majority of the contiguous 48 
states. Based on DOE estimates, a nuclear waste shipment would have to 
leave a site somewhere in America every 4 hours for 24 years. 
Proponents of this resolution suggest that it is the solution to having 
dangerous nuclear waste at reactors in close proximity to communities. 
What they fail to admit is that reactors would still have waste on 
site--the very waste that is ``too hot to handle'' and that poses the 
greatest threat to public health. As long as spent nuclear fuel is 
created at reactors, it will have to be stored onsite for 5 years as it 
cools. Moreover, Yucca Mountain will only hold about 60% of the total 
civilian and military waste that will need to be stored. At some point, 
Yucca Mountain will be full and these reactors will have to store the 
waste onsite permanently. We will still have waste at all 103 operating 
nuclear reactors nationwide, and then we will add to that the thousands 
of tons on the road, in barges and on rails. We do not believe that 
this enhances the security of our constituents; in fact, it may well 
threaten their security. We all know that accidents happen and the 
shipment of nuclear waste is not immune from the laws of probability as 
the following points illustrate:
     In the past 50 years, there have been an estimated 
3,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste, and 72 accidents. 
Within the first 2 years of Yucca opening, the number of 
shipments would exceed that of the past 50 years. Probability 
would dictate therefore that there will be 72 accidents in the 
first two years the waste is on the road.
     According to DOE's accident reports, there have 
been 72 ``incidents'' involving nuclear waste shipments since 
1949. Four of these accidents involved ``accidental radioactive 
material contamination beyond the vehicle;'' four involved 
radiation contamination confined to the vehicle; and 49 
involved accidental container surface contamination.
     The drop test used to test whether the casks can 
survive a crash reportedly used a crash speed of only 35 miles 
per hour--when the trucks will be driving 65-70 miles per hour 
on their way to Las Vegas.
     The puncture test used to certify casks reportedly 
tests only a 40-inch drop of a cask onto a spike--surely, if a 
truck transporting the casks was forced off a bridge the drop 
would be far greater than that.
    Accidents are not the only worry. From admissions made by 
Al Qaeda operatives to diagrams of nuclear reactors found in 
caves of Afghanistan, we know that terrorists are trying 
desperately to build dirty bombs or homemade nuclear weapons. 
The Transportation Security Division at DOE, which is 
responsible for transporting nuclear weapons, failed 6 out of 7 
of its security force-on-force exercises. And when DOE recently 
requested $18 million to ``increase security personnel and 
equipment to bolster protection for nuclear weapons shipments 
within the country, to include engineered container 
modifications that significantly increase security for U.S. 
nuclear warheads,'' the White House said no. If we cannot be 
assured that the nuclear weapons are safe and secure or that 
DOE will even have the necessary resources, how can we be sure 
about the security of the thousands of shipments of nuclear 
waste that will be sent through hundreds of communities in 
America?
    In light of the scientific and transportation 
uncertainties, the decision to move forward with Yucca Mountain 
is premature. Under section 114(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982, the Secretary's recommendation is supposed 
to be based ``on the record of information developed by the 
Secretary under Section 113 and this section, including the 
information described in subparagraph (A) through subparagraph 
(G),'' which include providing an explanation of the 
relationship between the packaged waste and the geologic medium 
of the site and providing a final environmental impact 
statement. The GAO recently criticized DOE for embarking on 
this reckless course, questioning the ``prudence and 
practicality'' of making the recommendation at this time. 
Although all the technical and scientific issues will not be 
resolved until at least 2004, the recommendation is being made 
now. This assures that the necessary approvals will eventually 
materialize since it will be too late and too expensive to do 
anything else. With 293 outstanding technical issues to resolve 
with the NRC and the other scientific questions mentioned 
earlier, we do not believe the Secretary has met the 
requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Secretary 
claims they will be answered in the future. But allowing the 
license application to go forward at this point is like 
allowing a medical student to treat patients after claiming 
that he will complete his medical training over the next few 
years.
    Proponents of Yucca Mountain point to the amount of money 
already invested in the project. They claim that voting against 
this resolution would take the process back to square one. But 
they are wrong. If this resolution failed, DOE could continue 
to do site characterization work and come back to Congress when 
they have actually answered the science questions and could 
assure the security of the shipments and we would vote on it 
again. Defeat of the resolution does not stop this work, since 
the only specific provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
1982 that deals with this is Sec. 113, which stops such work 
only if DOE determines Yucca Mountain is not suitable.
    The decision on H.R. Res. 87 will last for 10,000 years. We 
need more technical information before we, as policymakers, can 
decide if the benefits of Yucca Mountain outweigh the danger to 
our constituents, the citizens of Nevada and future 
generations, who may suffer from our rash decision.
    We respectfully dissent.

                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Anna G. Eshoo.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Lois Capps.
                                   Frank Pallone.
                                   Henry A. Waxman.

                                
