It was described as the "most anti-environmental Congress in history."
The Republican "revolution" began in January 1995 with a full-scale attempt to roll back environmental regulations and cut environmental programs. Industry lobbyists crowded Capitol Hill hallways and offices, not just offering their views but actually writing the legislation.
The Nuclear Energy Institute confidently asserted that a bill to create an "interim" storage site for high-level radioactive waste would be passed and signed by Christmas 1995. Proposed "low-level" waste dumps at Ward Valley, California and Sierra Blanca, Texas would clear their last hurdles.
It didn't turn out quite that way.
Instead, as Congress limped toward adjournment in late September, a startling realization occurred: a combination of circumstance, conservative over-reaching, and firm veto threats from President Clinton resulted in the worst Congressional session for the nuclear power industry ever.
When the dust had cleared and the last Member had left town, environmentalists' jeers had turned to cheers.
Mobile Chernobyl Act
The centerpiece of the nuclear industry's legislative initiatives: interim storage of waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada--popularly known as the "Mobile Chernobyl Act"--never even reached the House floor for a vote.
After the Senate passed Mobile Chernobyl July 31 without enough votes to override a presidential veto, the Nuclear Energy Institute engaged in an estimated $1.5 million campaign to try to force Clinton to change his mind. The effort was concentrated in key election battlegrounds like Michigan, Illinois and Iowa, and at the Democratic National Convention.
But the campaign, which generated thousands of phone calls to the White House, had no effect. At the end, without the votes to override a Presidential veto, the House leadership meekly wrote to President Clinton and asked if he still planned to veto the bill. For the fifth time, Clinton reaffirmed his intention to veto Mobile Chernobyl.
And that was it. The House leadership called bill opponent Rep. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and told him they were pulling the bill (HR 1020, Upton, R-Mich.) from the floor.
It hadn't been easy: defeating Mobile Chernobyl had required heroic efforts from Nevada Senators Richard Bryan and Harry Reid, President Clinton's unwavering resolve to veto the bill, and, most importantly, the work of thousands of grassroots activists across the country who realized what many Congressmembers at first did not: that moving high-level radioactive waste across the country, to a "temporary" site, was dangerous to all Americans, and benefited only the nuclear industry.
Far from consolidating waste at one spot, as the industry claimed, citizens quickly realized that implementation of "interim" storage would merely add one more waste dump to the 110 nuclear reactors still generating waste. And with 50 million Americans living within one-half mile of likely transport routes, the stakes for public safety were much higher than Congress had considered at the beginning of the session.
Ward Valley & Sierra Blanca
The end of the session sparked a new effort by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) to force the transfer of federal land to California for the proposed Wad Valley "low-level" radioactive waste dump. Murkowski tried twice to put such legislation on other bills, but both times a threatened filibuster by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and a threatened veto from President Clinton stopped the measure.
Meanwhile, establishment of a Texas/Maine/Vermont compact, which requires Congressional approval, also stalled. The House overwhelmingly defeated an effort to approve the compact in 1995. Since then, compact supporters had been attempting to marshal enough votes to try again. Apparently, they failed, as the matter was also left hanging at the end of the session.
Changing Priorities
Nuclear research and development funding took a big hit this Congress, as coalitions of environmentalists and budget-cutters took aim at nuclear pork-barrel projects.
In 1995, Congress eliminated the wasteful gas-cooled reactor program (now General Atomics, which relied virtually entirely on government spending for its gas-cooled reactor program as no U.S. utilities expressed meaningful interest in the project, is trying to sell the idea to Russia for use as a plutonium-burning reactor).
This year, in the industry's only victory of the Congress, the Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) narrowly survived extinction. But DOE officials reportedly have said that the administration will seek to end that program entirely next year.
Ken Bossong of the Sustainable Energy Coalition reported October 3 that nuclear programs took $18.6 million in cuts from FY 96 to FY 97 (and FY 96 was cut from the previous year). $11.6 million was cut from nuclear fusion programs, $5 million from pyroprocessing and $2 million from the ALWR.
Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewables programs were increased by $11.4 million from last year, for a total shift away from nuclear and toward sustainable energy programs of $30 million--a welcome trend.
The Next Congress
It's probably too early to make any solid predictions about what nuclear-related legislation the next Congress may consider.
But at least a few things are clear: first, the nuclear industry will be back, pushing some form of radioactive waste legislation. Rep. Upton already has promised the industry that he will re-introduce an "interim" storage bill at the beginning of the next Congress.
Second, whether Democrats or Republicans control the House seems irrelevant: support for "interim" storage and opposition to Nevada seems likely to continue. If Republicans win, Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) seems likely to return as the House Commerce Committee chair; if the Democrats win, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who has clashed with Nevada's Democratic Senators in the past, likely will return as Chair.
A key question will be whether, if "interim" storage legislation is passed, President Clinton will maintain his veto posture in a non-election year. The Nuclear Energy Institute industry already has accused the President of issuing his veto threat solely to win Nevada's five electoral votes, and predicts that he will sign a bill next session.
Still, the industry's defeat this Congress, and the growing public opposition to "interim" storage and unnecessary radioactive waste transportation, may lead Congress to consider different alternatives. And environmentalists are likely to be in a stronger position to influence the debate than they were at the beginning of this Congress.
"Low-level" waste legislation may also receive Congressional attention next session, but by far the biggest subject Congress will tackle is utility deregulation. This will take a lot of Congressional time and energy, and its impact on the future of the nuclear power industry and the drive for sustainable energy could be substantial.