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.
“STATUS OF OUR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S5725-S5726 on June 19, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
____________________
