The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S11857-S11858 on Nov. 6, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no other Senators on the floor, I wish to address my views on the passage of the nuclear waste legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives, which occurred last week.
Mr. President, last week Congress took a very important step toward ending our Nation's 15-year struggle with how to solve our high-level nuclear waste problem. Last week, the House passed H.R. 1270 by an overwhelming, bipartisan 307-to-120 vote. The House bill is a companion to S. 104, the nuclear waste bill passed by the Senate by a 65-to-34 vote last spring.
Like the Senate bill, the House bill would take nuclear waste from 80 sites in 40 States, from the backyards of our constituents all across this land, and move it to one safe, central storage site. The Federal Government has a contractual commitment to take this nuclear waste for safe and central storage by next January.
Will that happen? The answer is clearly ``no,'' even though over $13 billion has been collected from America's ratepayers to pay for the permanent storage of that waste, and even though a Federal court order has reaffirmed the Government's legal obligation to take nuclear waste in January 1998. The same court is now considering what remedy the Government must provide for its failure to meet this obligation. This is the Government's failure, but it is the American taxpayer that is going to bear the burden. The American public paid that $13 billion into the nuclear waste fund and now will have to pay a second time. Estimates of potential damages for the failure of the Department of Energy to meet its obligations range from $40 billion to as high as $80 billion. That is $1,300 per American family.
How important is the nuclear power industry in this country? It contributes around 22 percent of the total power generation in this country. It provides electricity with no emissions, so air quality is not a problem. The problem is what do you do with the waste? You cannot throw it up in the air. It has to come down somewhere. The reality is that no one wants it. The French reprocess their spent fuel and recover the plutonium, put it back in the reactors and burn it. The Japanese are moving in that direction, as well.
We are hopelessly tied to a dilemma: no one wants nuclear waste and we don't have any place to put it. Some of the plants are reaching their maximum capacity. Without the licensing of proper storage and without the Federal Government meeting its obligations to take this waste, we stand to lose a significant portion of our Nation's nuclear generating capacity.
How are we going to make up for this lost generation? Are we going to put more coal fired plants on-line? How does the Clinton administration reconcile this position with their professed concern about emissions? If we lose a portion of our nuclear power generating capability, it is going to have to be replaced with something, and the Clinton administration has not provided us with any answers. Nor has it adequately addressed its contractual responsibility to take this waste.
Mr. President, without the legislation passed by the both the House and the Senate, there is no plan for action except more lawsuits, more employment for the lawyers. As we move to conference, opponents of the bill will continue to sing the same old, tired refrain. They call it
``Mobile Chernobyl,'' emasculating NEPA, running roughshod over our environmental laws. These scare tactics are a coverup, an excuse for no action. That is what we have had so far, no action in 15 years.
They will say the fuel is safely stored where it is. It is stored in temporary facilities next to the reactors that were designed for just that, temporary storage. But if it is safely stored where it is, then why isn't it safe to store it in Nevada at the Nevada test site, near where we have spent over $6 billion to develop a site that is facing, in the near future, licensing and suitability decisions? In fact, there is no question in my mind it must be safer to have one central, monitored site than to have nuclear waste at 80 sites scattered around the country at facilities that have been designed for temporary storage.
Then, of course, they argue that somehow it is unsafe to move nuclear fuel to one central site. But we have shown how we have been safely moving fuel around this country and abroad for many, many years. The French, the Japanese, and the Swedes move it by vessel, they move it by rail, they move it by truck.
They say the transportation casks cannot stand a 30-mile-per-hour crash or survive a diesel fuel fire. These are more emotional arguments that have no foundation. We have shown that the casks have been tested by locomotives going 90 miles an hour crashed into brick walls. They have been submerged in water, bathed in fire. The casks are designed to withstand any type of imaginable impact associated with transportation. We have shown that, while we have had a few minor accidents, there has never been a release of radiation. We have shown how our national laboratories have certified that the transportation casks can survive any real-world crash. They say the radiation protection standard is unsafe. We have shown how our standard is more protective than the current EPA guidance that allows five times as much, and we will allow EPA to tighten the standards further if need be.
The doomsayers say the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board says there is no compelling or technical or safety reason to move fuel to a central location. We have shown that a more complete reading of the technical review report and testimony indicates that there is a need for an interim storage and that there is a need for it at Yucca Mountain, if, indeed, Yucca is determined to be suitable for a permanent repository.
They say, ``We can delay the decision.'' We have shown that delay is what got us into this mess in the first place; inactivity. Any time now, the courts will tell us what damages we will face when the Government is in breach of its contract. With each delay, the damages are going to mount. With each delay, the liability of the taxpayer will mount. With each delay, there will be pressure to yield a further delay. That is the way this place works. When we have a problem, we simply delay. The call for delay is a siren song and, ultimately, a trap.
We stand at a crossroads. The job of solving this problem is ours. The time for solving the problem is now. We have made much progress at Yucca Mountain. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel is complete. We can build on this progress. Both the Senate and House bill contain site characterization activities for the permanent repository. But we cannot put all our eggs in the Yucca basket. We need a temporary storage facility now or we are going to be storing spent fuel all across the Nation for decades to come. We can choose whether this Nation needs 80 interim storage sites or just one. Where is that? The arid, remote, Nevada test site where we exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war. It is a safe, remote location. It is monitored, and it is appropriate for an interim site.
If Yucca Mountain is licensed, it will be an easy task to move the spent fuel a short distance to the repository. If Yucca is not licensed and is found to be unsuitable, we will need a centralized interim site anyway, so we will be way ahead of the game. Regardless of what happens at Yucca, this is a responsible step that we should take.
Mr. President, the time is now. This legislation passed the House and the Senate. It is the answer. I urge my colleagues over the recess to reflect on the merits of our obligation to take this waste, to recognize the dependence we have on the nuclear industry, and move to take a responsible position to uphold the contract that has been made by the Government to take this waste in conformance with the terms of the agreement and the $13 billion paid by the ratepayers.
For those who are still in doubt as to the merits of this legislation, I encourage them to recognize that it is irresponsible to object to what has happened in both the House and the Senate without providing an alternative. The development of this legislation has required a great deal of time and effort and a great deal of examination of alternatives. So I hope the critics come up with a workable alternative, as opposed to just criticism of the plan that is currently pending in the Congress of the United States, to meet our obligations to address the high-level nuclear waste issue.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
