THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map information that are dictated by Federal and State mission requirements;
[Page: S2654] GPO's PDF
``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and special-purpose geologic maps to--
``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions; and
``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and quality of map products; and
``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''.
SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE.
Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE.
``(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Survey shall establish a national geologic map database.
``(2) FUNCTION.--The database shall serve as a national catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and State geologic map holdings, that includes--
``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and the education component;
``(B) the databases developed in connection with investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and
``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the Association consider appropriate.''.
SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT.
The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT.
``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that--
``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping program;
``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map database; and
``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes of sections 4 through 7.''.
SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
``(b) ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--Of any amounts appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000--
``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State component; and
``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education component.''.
By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. GRAMS, and Mr. CRAPO):
S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1999
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my colleague, Senator FRANK MURKOWSKI of Alaska, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator ROD GRAMS to introduce the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.
Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of the legislation this year.
We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003.
The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions have already been detonated over the last 50 years.
In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the area of nuclear waste over the last number of years.
In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't lift its injunction.
Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this administration is the prime example of a government without leadership.
I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate.
I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this legislation to make it happen.
This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca Mountain . I think it is important to note that this legislation calls for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste.
In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, will be disposed of responsibly.
Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, I and Senator DOMENICI heard at length what this administration is doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste.
[Page: S2655] GPO's PDF
This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel coming from our Navy vessels.
Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the year 2003.
Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel in the United States and that there has not been a single death or injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000 other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments.
This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those are the facts as I have related them.
I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our public that all of it is done well and safely.
As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity--and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply because we cannot manage our waste.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal.
I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon.
I thank my colleague, Senator CRAIG, for his statement relative to the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by nuclear energy.
Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years.
What have they paid for? They have paid the Federal Government to take the waste under contract in the year 1998. That was a year ago. Shakespeare wrote in Henry III, ``Delays have dangerous ends.......'' We might also add, ``expensive ends.''
In addition to what the ratepayers have paid, there has been over $6 billion expended by the Federal Government in preparation for the waste primarily at Yucca Mountain . Delay has been the administration's answer to the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in this country. This administration simply doesn't want to take it up on its watch under any terms or circumstances.
In 1997, the administration objected to siting a temporary storage facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain would be complete.
The so-called ``dangerous ends'' to that delay is that 1998 has come and gone. The viability assessment was presented and
guess what? There were no show stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project were not called for. The next step, of course, is to move on with the licensing, which is to take place in the year 2001.
What is the delay this year? It is the inability of the administration to recognize its contractual commitment under the agreement. To his credit, the new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has come forward with the first ever--and I mean first ever--administration proposal on nuclear waste. The Department of Energy would assume ownership of the used nuclear fuel and continue storing it at its commercial and defense sites in the 41 States across the country. The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees collected by the Department of Energy over the past 18 years, as I have stated. These are fees that were to have been dedicated to the removal and permanent storage of the spent fuel.
While this proposal may seem interesting, let's reflect on it a little bit, because what it means is that there is no date certain to remove the waste. The waste would sit onsite near the reactors.
It seems that we have gone full cycle in one sense. If you recognize that the Government had contracted to take the waste in 1998, the court has specifically stated that the Federal Government is liable to take that waste. So the court says, in effect, the Federal Government owns the waste onsite.
The proposal is the Government take the waste onsite. In fact, it owns the waste anyway. Think about it. There is a duplication, of course. I have a map here that I think warrants a little consideration. It shows some of the sites where we have nuclear fuel and radioactive waste that is destined for the geologic disposal.
The commercial reactors are in brown in California, in Washington, in Arizona, in Texas, up and down the east coast, in Illinois.
We have the shutdown reactors with the spent fuel onsite. These are the little triangles. We have them in Oregon, California, and Illinois. We have them in Michigan. This is significant amounts of waste that would go to a central repository at Yucca Mountain if this administration would come to grips with its responsibility.
Commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are depicted by the little black squares. There are a few of them around.
Non-DOE research reactors. These are reactors that are spread through the country.
Then we have the Navy reactor fuel in Idaho. And we have the Department of Energy-owned spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico.
We have this all around the country, Mr. President, and the whole purpose of this legislation is to provide for and put this waste in one central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada where it would be retrievable. As a consequence, as we look at this proposal--and, again, I would like to point out there is no date for removal--one of the more interesting things is that there are claims now brought about by the nuclear industry against the Federal Government for nonperformance of its contract. Those claims total somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion.
The Government is in default for nonperformance of its contractual obligation. One of the proposals circulated
[Page: S2656] GPO's PDF
In other words, this waste is going to sit where it is, Mr. President. We do not know how long because there is no definite date in the proposal for the administration to take the waste.
So what have we done? We have simply gone full circle. The court said the Federal Government owned the waste. The Federal Government says they will take it and store it at site. They will not tell you when they are going to get rid of it. They use the money the ratepayers pay to store it there. I don't think that is satisfactory. It is a little different. It is acknowledging that they have come up with a proposal, but I do not think it is workable.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents