Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Idaho, I know, is going to request time, 10 or 15. The Senator from Louisiana. I am going to yield myself 5 minutes at this time, and I will attempt to accommodate--why don't I just go ahead with the Senator from Wyoming now and allot him 5 minutes. I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the Senator from Wyoming, who, unfortunately, will be departing this body at some point in time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I believe the other side wants to speak. I retain the remainder of our time. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from South Dakota is correct. I defer to my colleague's judgement and expertise, as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the transportation of hazardous materials. I might also add that this provision is not meant to prejudice in any way the means by which the training requirements are satisfied.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when the Senate debated the motion to proceed. I suggested that S. 1936 was the answer to nuclear waste and that the editorial page of the Washington Post was the answer to parakeet waste. I would not insult parakeets by suggesting that would be a good use of the letter from the Administrator of the EPA or the Chair of the CEQ. The statements made in these letters are inaccurate and simply the shrill hysteria of those who believe that if you repeat a lie often enough, someone might believe you. The administration, sadly, has demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to address this issue, and have now resorted to misstatement, mischaracterization, and distortion to prevent Congress from exercising the leadership the administration has abandoned. Far from being an assault on our environmental laws, this legislation reaffirms our commitment to the environment, and the health and safety of the American people. Now, turning specifically to the letters--EPA says we preempt laws in S. 1936: The substitute the Senate just overwhelmingly adopted does not preempt environmental statutes. EIS requirements are consolidated, but a full EIS is required. EPA says section 204(i) of our bill prevents the NRC from issuing regulations to protect public health under certain circumstances. This is inflammatory and misleading: Section 204(i) simply says that the storage of commercial spent fuel, that the NRC will regulate under our bill, does not need to wait while the NRC writes regulations for other forms of nuclear wastes including naval reactor and defense wastes. EPA says section 205(d)(3)(C) prevents NRC from making important determinations: All our bill says is that the NRC is not required to assume that the records of waste disposal, security measures, and the natural and engineered barriers will be insufficient to prevent future human intrusion. Without this provision, DOE would have to prove a negative. Turning now to the letter from CEQ: The CEQ's letter asserts S. 1936 ``Dismantles the EIS process under NEPA,'' by removing the requirement that DOE conduct an ``alternatives analysis'' on the selection of an interim storage site. The CEQ's letter entirely misses the point: This legislation requires an EIS to be prepared by the NRC as part of its licensing process because Congress is today rendering its judgment about the need for interim storage and the location of the site, we say that these decisions need not be duplicated in the NRO process. I would add that our legislation does not preclude the President from performing an alternatives analysis in selecting an interim storage site other than Nevada, if he determines that the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is not viable. There is an EIS. It can be challenged in court, and public safety and the environment is protected. The EPA letter says the 100 millirem standard is inappropriate: EPA is given the authority to change the 100 millirem standard if it determines it constitutes an unreasonable risk to public health/saftey. What are they complaining about? There are no valid scientific studies which suggest a release of 100 millirem per year poses any health risk. The probability of adverse health consequences has not been shown to be any less from a zero dose than from a 100 millirem dose. There is at least a 100 millirem difference between a person living on the east coast and Western States. If you move from Washington to Denver, you would receive 100 or more additional millirem from natural sources. EPA doesn't have a problem with that. You get 100 extra millirem by living in the White House, a stone building with natural radiation. Is EPA saying the White House is unsafe for the President? Madam President, I think it is appropriate to note that these letters simply represent an action by the administration to delay what has been delayed for 15 years. There are no positive recommendations in spite of the fact that the committee and myself personally have requested in three letters to the President that if he opposes specific portions of this legislation, he come up with alternatives. Those letters, for all practical purposes, have been ignored. Clearly, this administration simply wishes to put this off to somebody else's watch, and that is irresponsible for the administration. It is irresponsible to duck the issue at this time. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Idaho and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me yield time to the Senator from Idaho to conclude his remarks.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would ask at the conclusion of the debate time for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield to my friend from Idaho.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, Madam President, may I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, as we approach the final minutes prior to voting, I would like to very briefly refute some of the specific claims that have been made in the Chamber in the debate. These claims, of course, have had to do with transportation, safety, cask integrity, radiation, the application of environmental laws, and, of course, finally, the issue of just who benefits from this legislation. The issue of transportation and safety and cask integrity is important, and there has been every effort to describe that the transportation of used fuel is something that has a risk. But the opponents of this legislation talk about it as if it represents some novel and untested approach, and these statements are not true. We have been moving spent fuel both in the United States and around the world for decades. There have been over 20,000 movements of spent fuel around the world over the last 40 years; 30,000 tons have been moved in France alone. That is equal to what we have in storage. So it can be moved, and it can be moved safely because it is designed to be moved safely. This bill, S. 1936, includes new measures, new training and new assistance to make the movement even safer. The fact is nuclear materials will be transported with or without the passage of this bill. Spent fuel, foreign research reactor fuel, naval fuel, and other radioactive materials are being transported every day in the United States. Another example is we build submarines on the east coast in Connecticut, but when the sub has served its useful life, the fuel is removed and taken to Idaho. The sub is cut up. The reactor compartment is buried in Hanford, WA. So we all have an interest in this, and we must address responsibly a solution. Another claim I want to refute has to do with the generalization that has been made on the floor of the Senate that somehow we are waiving the application of environmental laws that are needed to protect the public health and safety. S. 1936 requires the NRC to prepare environmental impact statements, or EIS's, as part of a decision to license a central interim storage facility, and the EIS's must include the impact of transporting the used fuel to the interim storage facility. There is also judicial review. S. 1936 requires the DOE to submit an EIS on construction and operation of the repository. It is clear, Madam President, S. 1936 does not trample environmental laws as has been charged on this floor. This is a unique facility. None like it has ever been developed anywhere in the world. So the regulatory licensing program for a permanent facility contained in S. 1936 is designed to protect public health and safety without reliance upon other laws. With respect to NEPA, we recognize Congress has decided that we will build an interim site in Nevada, and we do not let the NEPA process revisit the decision that Congress has already made. That is what we are saying. NEPA applies. We are simply saying NEPA does not have to revisit the decision of policy that we are making here today. The last claim I am compelled to refute is on the issue of timing. Opponents say S. 1936 claims that there is no need to tackle the issue now, that it is a waste of time. That does not sound like anything other than Washington bureaucracy: Let's defer the decision. Let's not take action. Let's keep spending money without results. Let's maintain the status quo. Let's promote the stalemate. Let's maintain the gridlock.'' For 15 years we have collected billions of dollars. We have expended $6 billion and we go nowhere. We have a chance to go somewhere today. But the Washington bureaucracy wants to say: ``Let's keep taking the consumers' money, but not provide them with nuclear waste removal services we promised them in return. Let's ignore the recent court cases and let us stick it to the taxpayers who will have to pay the damages.'' Our opponents would have you believe the Government has no responsibility. But the recent court decision has blown our opponents' arguments out of the water. The Federal Government has a responsibility. Failure to live up to that responsibility will have significant consequences, so said the court. And it said so unanimously. Finally, the fifth issue I must refute is the issue of just who benefits from the legislation. The other side has tried to paint this bill as one of exclusively benefiting the nuclear power lobby. But I have letters from 23 States, written by Governors and attorneys general, urging the Congress to pass and the President to sign the bill. We have letters from Governors, Governor Lawton Chiles of Florida and others, relative to that matter. We have broad support for this bill across the political spectrum. Ours is a bipartisan effort, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. We are supported by unions as well, the Electrical Workers Union, Utility Workers, AFL-CIO, Joiners and Carpenters. The fire chiefs in Nevada have indicated support of this. As have many Nevadans--I have already entered that in the Record. Our constituents should not have to pay twice for nuclear waste services. We do not have to create 80 waste dumps, including some in populated areas or sitting just outside national parks, when one will do. We do not have to settle for further delay, further stalemate and further gridlock. We can avoid multibillion-dollar damages against the taxpayer for the Government's failure to address a problem that a recent court case says is Government's responsibility. We can do that. It is the right thing to do for the consumers and electric ratepayers, for the environment, for public health and safety, and I urge we pass Senate bill 1936. Madam President, at this time I would like to thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Johnston, who has been involved in this much longer than I, for his steadfast commitment to what is responsible and what is right for the country, to finally address our responsibility. I thank my friend, Larry Craig, who introduced this legislation initially, and Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, Senator Thurmond, Senator Simpson, Senator Faircloth, Senator Gorton. I recognize Senator Thomas, as well as my two colleagues, Senator Bryan and Senator Reid. I know what a tough thing this is for your State. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me thank the staff as well. I would like to thank the Energy Committee staff, including Gregg Renkes, Gary Ellsworth, Jim Beirne, Karen Hunsicker, David Garman, David Fish and Betty Nevitt, as well as Nils Johnson from Senator Craig's office, and the minority staff, Ben Cooper, Sam Fowler and Bob Simon. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. How much time is left on the other side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 31, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. to hold an open hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment will solve a pressing environmental problem, a major environmental problem in our Nation, a problem that is looming as a liability to the taxpayers, and this will end an era of irresponsible delay. This major environmental issue is simple to understand. That is, do we want 80 nuclear waste dumps in 41 States serving 110 commercial reactors and defense sites across the country--near our neighbors, our schools and populated cities? Or do we want just one in the remote, unpopulated Nevada desert where we tested and exploded nuclear weapons for decades? Mr. President, I am going to yield some time on the amendment to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, the Senate President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5055 which is at the desk.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. So all Senators should be advised that will be--I guess the Senators from Nevada can give us a better idea, but I would imagine 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank my good friend and colleague for his support in addressing once and for all the issue of high-level nuclear waste in this country. Mr. President, I think it is significant to reflect that at last we have in our extended debate with our good friends from Nevada basically broken the filibuster on this issue. Today the Senate is going to have the chance to debate the issue and reach conclusions. We are demonstrating, I think, that we do have the courage to address this difficult problem, recognizing that it is one of the major environmental issues before the U.S. Senate. Two weeks ago Senator Craig, Senator Johnston, and I stood on this floor and said the Government had an obligation to take this spent fuel. Of course, some disagreed with us. Some argued that the Government had no such obligation. But a curious thing happened last week. A Federal appeals court unanimously ruled the Government does, indeed, have an obligation to take the spent fuel; as a matter of fact, a statutory obligation. Mr. President, this is a landmark decision, because it makes it imperative for us to pass this bill today. The situation has radically changed since our last vote. I appeal to my colleagues, if you did not vote with us last time, there is a good reason to vote with us today. That reason is very simple: The court unanimously ruled that the Government does have an obligation to take the spent fuel. Again, Mr. President, that is a statutory obligation. The courts have confirmed our contention that the Federal Government has the obligation to take spent commercial fuel. Failure to pass this bill and build an interim repository means the Government will have to take the fuel and put it somewhere else, or simply pay the damages. The court has not specified the amount of the damages yet because, technically, the Government has not yet broken its promise. But the damages could run into the billions of dollars if the Government reneges on its obligation. If we do not build an interim repository in Nevada, the Government might have to store the fuel at other Federal facilities around the Nation. The interesting thing about this problem, Mr. President, you simply cannot just throw spent fuel up in the air and defer the decision about where to store it. It has to come down somewhere. It has to be stored somewhere. Perhaps it will be the naval fuel storage facility in Connecticut, or maybe Rocky Flats or Fort St. Vrain in Colorado, or maybe the Pinellas plant in Florida, or maybe in Ohio, Portsmouth, Mound or Fernald, or maybe West Valley in New York, or perhaps Paducah in Kentucky, or perhaps it will be in Hanford on the Columbia River, which flows through Oregon and Washington. Therefore, Senators, I appeal to you, those from Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, New York, Kentucky, Oregon, those who did not vote with us for cloture on the motion to proceed, you might want to reexamine your position in light of the recent court decision, which simply states the Federal Government has to take it. The court has said the Government must take the spent fuel. As I have said, it has to go somewhere. If you are saying no to Nevada, you may be saying yes to your own State. You are certainly saying yes to someplace else. Last night I received a letter from Secretary of Energy O'Leary that criticizes Senate bill 1936 because it provides for the Department of Energy to begin accepting waste in 1999 and not 1998. I repeat, Mr. President, last night we did receive a letter from the Secretary criticizing Senate bill 1936 because it provides for the DOE to begin accepting waste in 1999, not 1998. This criticism is almost humorous in light of the fact that the current administration would not provide for the acceptance of waste at a central facility until the year 2010 at the earliest. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the Department of Energy would be in breach of its contract for 12 years. Further, the letter is inconsistent on its face because it then proceeds to criticize Senate bill 1936 for providing unrealistic schedules. It seems the administration believes our bill would provide an interim storage facility both too late or perhaps too soon. Senate bill 1936 provides a valid, realistic plan for the construction of a safe, centralized interim storage facility. I have personally sent over four letters to the President over the last 18 months asking for his plan if he opposed any legislation pending before this body. I have received only support for the status quo. Again, I repeat, if you were not with us before, you have reason to be with us today. The court's decision has made it clear that the status quo is not an acceptable option. Now, Mr. President, I make a few comments for the benefit of those Senators who did not vote with us 2 weeks ago. That is, very realistically, the ratepayers in your State are getting ripped off. They paid for something, and they are not getting anything in return. Instead of saving more for their children's college fund or saving for their dream home, consumers paid into the nuclear waste fund through their individual electric bill. They paid somewhere in the neighborhood of almost $12 billion. They have paid this money with the expectation that the Government would live up to their part of the bargain and remove the waste as it promised. But the Government simply has not performed. The waste is still there. It is near the homes, near the schools, it is near the neighborhoods. The opponents of this legislation are working to keep the status quo, and to keep the waste where it is. I want to again run down the list of States where those Senators did not vote with us, or at least one of the Senators did, and repeat how much the consumers of those States have spent for the nuclear waste fund. The State of Arkansas has contributed $266 million into that fund, and they receive 33 percent of their electric power from nuclear energy; California, $645 million has been paid by the ratepayers, they receive 26 percent of their electricity from nuclear power; Connecticut, $429 million paid in, and they receive 73 percent of their power from nuclear energy. It is rather interesting, as well, because I was reminded by my friend from Idaho that we build various submarines in Connecticut; after they are decommissioned they are cut up, and various parts of the reactors go to Hanford, where they are buried, and the fuel goes to Idaho, where they are currently stored. The point is, Mr. President, we all have an interest in this issue of what to do with nuclear waste. Florida, $557 million from ratepayers, for receiving 18 percent on nuclear energy; Massachusetts, $319 million paid by the ratepayers, 14 percent dependent on nuclear energy; Maryland, $257 million, 24 percent of their power is nuclear; New York, $734 million ratepayers in New York have paid into the fund and they are 28 percent dependent on nuclear energy; Ohio, $253 million has been paid in, 7 percent dependent on nuclear energy; Wisconsin, $336 million paid by the ratepayer, 23 percent of their energy comes from nuclear. There are other States with no nuclear plants that, nevertheless, depend on nuclear power from neighboring States, and they have also paid into that fund. Those States are: Delaware, $29 million; Indiana, $288 million; Iowa, $192 million; Kentucky, $81 million; New Mexico, $32 million; North Dakota, $11 million; Rhode Island, $8 million. Mr. President, that adds up to a total of $4.537 billion. That is a lot of money to throw away without results. That is not our money, Mr. President; that was money collected from Americans to deal with nuclear waste. Do we really want to tell consumers from those States that after allowing this money to be taken from their electric bills, we are not going to use that money to solve the nuclear waste problem? Do we want to tell consumers that we are going to make them pay, once again, for additional waste storage at reactor sites, or that we will expose them and all taxpayers to tremendous liabilities arising out of the court cases I mentioned earlier? The extent of these liabilities are very difficult to estimate, but we know they are going to be high. There are yet other reasons to join us in supporting this amendment, and I appeal to my colleagues. After the 65-to-34 cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Senate bill 1936 2 weeks ago, we received many constructive suggestions for improving the bill. Amendment No. 5055 would replace the text of Senate bill 1936 with new language and incorporate these changes. The most important of the changes are as follows: A role for the EPA. The amendment provides that the Environmental Protection Agency shall issue standards for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive materials from a permanent nuclear waste repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required to base its licensing determination on whether the repository can be operated in accordance with EPA's radiation protection standards. Another issue was transportation routing. The amendment includes the language of an amendment that was filed by Senator Moseley-Braun, which provides for further assurance of the safe transportation of these materials by requiring the Secretary of Energy to use routes that minimize, to the maximum practical extent, transportation through populated and sensitive environmental areas. Elimination of civil service exemption. As requested by Senator Glenn, the amendment strikes the provisions in title VII that would have exempted the nuclear waste program from civil service laws and regulations. Elimination of train inspection limitation. The amendment includes language provided by Senator Pressler that strikes any reference to who shall perform inspections of trains. This is to address concerns that the language in Senate bill 1936 would change existing law with regard to train inspections. Clarify scope of the Department of Transportation training standards. The amendment clarifies that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has primary authority for the training of workers in nuclear-related activities. However, the Department of Transportation is authorized to promulgate worker safety training standards for removal and transportation of spent fuel if it finds that there are gaps in the NRC regulations. Next, Mr. President, is elimination of permanent disposal research provisions. This amendment eliminates the section requiring the Department of Energy to establish an office to study new technologies for the disposal of nuclear waste. Elimination of budget priorities. This amendment eliminates a section providing that the Secretary must prioritize funds appropriated to the nuclear waste program to the construction of the interim storage facility. This provision, obviously, is no longer needed in light of DOE's reevaluation of its budget requirements for the program. Elimination of direct reference to Chalk Mountain route. The amendment eliminates the reference to the map outlining the heavy haul route through Nellis Air Force Base. The amendment simply provides that the DOE must use heavy haul to transport casks from the intermodal transfer facility at Caliente, NV, and does not specify any particular route. Remove failure to finalize viability assessment as a trigger for raising size of phase 2. Senate bill 1936 provides that phase 2 of the interim storage facility will be no larger than the 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel, but provides a series of triggers that will allow the Department of Energy to expand the facility to 60,000 metric tons. The amendment eliminates DOE's failure to complete a viability assessment of the permanent repository in 1998 as a trigger, making the first trigger the license application for the permanent repository in the year 2002. Limitation and clarification of ``preliminary decisionmaking'' language. The amendment clarifies that the prelicensing construction activities authorized by 203(e)(1) are the only construction activities that will be considered to be ``preliminary decisionmaking'' activities. Further, the amendment corrects this section by indicating that the use of the existing E-Mad facility at the interim storage site for emergency fuel handling in phase 1 is considered to be a preliminary decisionmaking activity. Senate bill 1936 mistakenly refers to use of facilities use authorized another section, which was the entire interim storage facility. Mr. President, we believe these changes, in addition to those already made in Senate bill 1936, provide additional assurance that the construction and the operation of an integrated management system will be carried out with the utmost sensitivity to environmental and safety concerns. However, Senate bill 1936 will still allow the Department of Energy to resolve this urgent environmental problem by meeting its obligation to store and dispose of spent fuel and nuclear waste in a timely manner. Obviously, I urge my colleagues to consider the merits of this amendment and support final passage of Senate bill 1936.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it would be appropriate to defer to our colleagues from Nevada at this time. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sure that my friend from Louisiana, as well as Senator Craig, would like to be heard from. But I think we should perhaps go to the other side at this time.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.