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      

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.

   What we have here is, if you will, more delay. The Department of Energy--and really it is not the Department of Energy's fault--it is the administration that has broken its promise to the electric consumers, who depend on nuclear energy, people who have paid more than $14 billion to the Federal Government.

   That $14 billion paid by consumers was designed specifically to remove this waste, Mr. President, to a single--a single--storage facility at Yucca Mountain . And that is what we have been building. The waste, again, was supposed to be taken in the year 1998.

   Where have we been over the past 15 years? We have done nothing but slip the schedule on nuclear waste. First it was to have this waste removed by the year 2003, then 2005, then 2010, now 2015. With this proposal that I have just mentioned, that is in draft form, they are proposing it go back to 2010. Maybe that is progress; I don't know. Through it all, the nuclear ratepayers have paid the bill, but we are not through with the cost.

   As I have indicated previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled the Department of Energy had an obligation to take possession of the waste in 1998, whether or not a repository was ready. The court ordered the Department of Energy to pay contractual remedies. This is a pretty big hit on the Federal Government and, hence, the taxpayer, Mr. President.

   Estimates of damages range as high as $40, $50, $60--up to $80 billion. How do the damages break down? Here they are: the cost of storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19.6 billion; return of nuclear waste fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of nuclear plants due to insufficient storage--these are power replacement costs--$24 billion.

   That is a pretty disastrous scenario for the consumers. It would add, if you will, the high cost of replacement power if these reactors go down as a consequence of not being able to basically remove their waste. There is loss of emissions, a free source of electric energy if the nuclear plants are forced to close. And again, I would remind you that 22 percent of our total electric power is generated from nuclear energy.

   These costs, these ``dangerous ends'' can be fixed. It is really time for the administration to stop trying out bats, if you will, and step up to the plate on its obligation. So today I once again, along with Senator CRAIG, and a number of my colleagues, Senator GRAMS, are introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to solve our immediate liability problems by establishing an interim nuclear waste facility at the Nevada test site.

   Why the Nevada test site? Over the last 50 years, we have tested nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons in that area numerous times. As a consequence, it appears, and was selected, to be the best site for a permanent repository.

   What we are proposing, by this legislation, is to move this waste out and put it at site, but have it retrievable so when the permanent repository is ready it can be placed there. In the meantime, we will remove the waste from some 70 sites around the country.

   In addition, this measure improves the process towards a permanent nuclear waste repository by making sure that funding is adequate and that the process to reach that goal is sound and viable?

   While my committee will examine the proposal put forth by the Secretary, there is some circular reasoning inherent in it.

   One, the administration's arguments to date have been that building an interim storage facility would divert funds from the study of the proposed permanent repository. But the Secretary's proposal for continued onsite storage would do just that. It would redirect consumer funds to pay for continued onsite storage.

   Do we really want this nuclear waste piling up at 71 sites around the Nation rather than one? That is the critical question, Mr. President. Here is the proposed site for the nuclear waste--out in the Nevada desert. And the Nevada test site was previously used for more than 800 nuclear weapons tests. There it is.

   There is some conversation that suggests, What if the current repository at Yucca Mountain does not prove to be licensable, what will you do with it then? Obviously, we will have to address that. But in the meantime, we would concentrate

   it out in this area in retrievable casks that would allow us to move it someplace for permanent storage. Or there is the technology that is developing on reprocessing that the Japanese and the French have proceeded with, which is to recover the plutonium out of the spent nuclear fuel and put it back in the reactors. That is another alternative.

   So the alternative to leaving it at the 71 sites, vis-a-vis putting it out in one place where we have had over 800 nuclear tests over the past 50 years, obviously is a logical and reasonable progression to remove this from the various sites around the United States.

   Finally, Mr. President, the time for delay is long past. We have had enough delay now. In the last Congress, we had a vote on this matter. It was overwhelmingly bipartisan. There were 65 Members of the U.S. Senate that voted yes--that voted yes--to put the waste in a temporary retrievable repository at Yucca Mountain . In the House there were 307 Members that voted yes.

   Obviously the time is now at hand to move this bill out, to meet the responsibility that we have committed to with the ratepayers over these last 18 years and take that $14 billion and move this waste out to the Nevada test site once and for all until the permanent repository is licensed.

   So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits of this bill--the debate went on in the last Congress--and recognize that we simply cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this. This is a contract commitment. You have to recognize the sanctity of that contract and the recognition of 22 percent of our power is from nuclear energy, and if we are to allow this industry to strangle on its high-level waste, we are doing a great disservice and simply are going to have to come up with power sources from other generating capabilities that do not offer the air quality that is available by nuclear energy.

   As we look at global warming and greenhouse gases and various legislative proposals by the administration, the role of nuclear energy is noticeably absent. I think that is unfortunate as we recognize that nuclear energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gases and hence global warming.

   Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1999.

   First, I would like to thank Senators MURKOWSKI and CRAIG for once again authoring this legislation and for their combined efforts in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on matters related to nuclear waste storage.

   As we all know, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its amendments in 1987. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca

[Page: S2657]  GPO's PDF

   Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning January 31, 1998. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise.

   Because of these promises and measures taken by the federal government, ratepayers have paid over $15 billion, including interest, into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding $1 billion annually, or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year.

   Up until recently, however, the administration has acted as if there is no problem. They have maintained a hands-off approach to the issue and when they have engaged Congress on nuclear waste storage, it has only been to issue a veto threat against this legislation.

   As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last year, I had the opportunity to question Secretary Richardson on nuclear waste issues during his Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, his answers to my questions were generally incomplete and contained little substantive discussion on the very real problems facing our nation's utilities, states, and ratepayers.

   Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a few of those responses. They read:

   Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating electricity.
* * * * *

   It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been safely transported in the United States in compliance with the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation.
* * * * *

   The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy.

   I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability, he wrote: ``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as Secretary of Energy.''

   I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's actions to avoid its responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this once I am confirmed.''

   Now, Mr. President, let's look at how then-nominee Federico Pen 6a responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

   ..... we will work with the Committee to address these issues within the context of the President's statement last year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate questions and I look forward to working with you and others to try to find a solution.

   Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary Pen 6a, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, last year refused to keep the DOE's promise.

   Now, Secretary Richardson has come before the Senate and offered a ``new'' approach to the nuclear waste storage crisis. He believes we should leave the waste at sites across the country

   and merely transfer title, or ownership, to the federal government. The federal government would then be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining each of the 73 interim storage sites in 34 states, including the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota. To pay for this, Secretary Richardson is suggesting we raid the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was created to pay for the removal of that same spent nuclear fuel.

   While I am glad to see the Administration is finally engaged in the nuclear waste debate and that Secretary Richardson has finally been allowed to address the issue before the U.S. Senate, his proposal is a ``year late and several billion dollars short.'' It does nothing to actually move the waste out of our states and into an interim storage facility. It is unclear whether his proposal would do anything to prevent the premature shutdown of nuclear facilities in states like Minnesota. And the one thing we know it will do, is take money from the Nuclear Waste Fund that was supposed to pay for the removal of spent nuclear fuel, not the indefinite continuance of a failed approach to nuclear waste management.

   Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. Effective January 31, 1998, they began paying for both of these costs simultaneously, even though no waste has been moved.

   When the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities across the nation, the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the follies created by the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be $80 to $100 billion or more. The ratepayers will also have to pay the price of building new gas or coal-fired plants when nuclear plants must shut down. And, if the Administration gets its way, my constituents will pay again when the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 2008--exactly the same time Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its electricity from clean nuclear power and replacing it with fossil fuels.

   That is why we must move forward, pass the legislation introduced today, and send it to the President for his signature. If he refuses to sign the bill, then I believe we will be able to find those last two votes we need to override his veto and remove the cloud hanging over our nation's ratepayers. There is no scientific or technical reason why we should not move this bill forward and pass it into law.

   The administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and hold them up against this Administration's lack of action, you can only come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and science.

   Mr. President, I am proud to once again support these amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and urge my colleagues to move this bill quickly through committee and onto the Senate floor where it will once again be approved by an overwhelming majority.

   By Mr. MURKOWSKI:

   S. 609. A bill to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to prevent the abuse of inhalants through programs under the Act, and for other purposes; read the first time.

   THE SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT AMENDMENT

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help fight a silent epidemic among America's youth. This epidemic can leave young people permanently brain damaged, and in some cases even dead. It is called inhalant abuse. An awful lot of attention goes to substance abuse--alcohol, drugs--but very little attention is being given to inhalant abuse. It seems to be the silent killer.

[Page: S2658]  GPO's PDF

   My bill amends the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 to include inhalant abuse among the act's definition of ``abused substances,'' thereby allowing schools the option to educate students about the horrors of inhalant abuse.

   What exactly are inhalants? What are we talking about? Inhalants are the intentional breathing of gas or vapors for the purpose of getting a high. Over 1,400 common products can be abused--lighter fluid, pressurized whipped cream, hair spray; gasoline is often used in my rural State of Alaska. These products are inexpensive, they are easily obtained, and, most of all, they are legal. One inhalant abuse counselor told me, ``If it smells like a chemical, it can be abused.''

   It is a silent epidemic because few adults appreciate the severity of the problem or how often it occurs. It is estimated one in five students have tried inhalants by the time they reach the eighth grade. The use of inhalants by children has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Inhalants are the third most abused substance among teenagers, behind alcohol and tobacco.

   Inhalants are deadly. Inhalant vapors react with fatty tissues of the brain and literally dissolve those tissues. A one-time use of inhalants can cause instant and permanent brain damage, heart failure, kidney failure, liver failure, or death. The user can also suffer instant heart failure. This is known as sudden sniffing death syndrome. This means an abuser can die on the very first time he or she tries it or the 10th time or the 100th time that an individual sees fit to use an inhalant. In fact, according to a recent study by the National Native Health Consortium, ``inhaling has a higher risk of `instant death' than any other abused substance.'' Think of that: Inhalants have a higher risk of instant death, the first time, than any other abused substance.

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