Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the question before the body now is whether we want to leave the waste where it is, 41
States in 80 sites, or do something about the waste. Do we want the waste to move out again because of an inability to reach a
decision? Where would it move? Nobody wants it in any of the 50 States. It would move out to the Pacific. God knows where
it would move. Today we must make an important environmental decision which will lead to a safer future for all Americans. 

Currently, Mr. President, as I have noted, we have the waste stored in 80 sites in 41 States. This is in addition to waste stored
at DOE facilities, and it is in our backyards across the land. Do we want that waste to stay there, or do we want to move it?
That is the question. 

Every year that goes by our ability to continue to store nuclear waste at each of these sites in a safe and environmentally
responsible way diminishes. Our temporary storage facilities were designed for just that--temporary storage. We have
struggled with this nuclear waste issue for more than a decade. We have collected $13 billion from the taxpayers, but some are
unprepared to meet the Government's promise to take the waste by 1998, next year. 

The administration's position would suggest that we are undermining the permanent repository program. They have not read
the bill. The reality is that it is the only way to save the permanent repository program. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Order in the Chamber. 

Mr. BYRD. Let's get order in the Senate. The rule requires that the Chair secure and maintain order in the Senate and in the
galleries without a point of order being made from the floor. 

I hope the Chair will insist on it, and I hope that Senators will respect the Chair. 

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me remind you that the U.S . court of appeals has ruled that the Department of Energy has an
obligation to take possession of the nuclear waste in 1998, whether or not a repository is ready. Damages for the Department
of Energy's failure to perform are going to cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. 

Now, the administration says that S . 104 would effectively establish Nevada as a site for an interim storage facility before the viability assessment of Yucca
Mountain as a permanent repository is completed. Well, they have not read the bill, Mr. President. S . 104 does not choose a
site for interim storage before the viability assessment of Yucca Mountain is completed. If the viability assessment is positive,
the bill provides that the interim storage facility will be constructed at the Nevada test site. If the viability assessment is
negative, the bill provides that the President has 18 months and Congress has 2 years to choose another interim storage site. 

This bill, Senate 104 , protects the public health, environment, and extends the schedule for siting and licensing. It requires
environmental impact statements. It provides the interim facility will be licensed. 

It shortens the license term of the interim facility to 40 years; it balance State and Federal laws, preempting only those State
laws that are inconsistent with the act; it provides that the Environmental Protection Agency will set standards for a permanent
repository, based upon the National Academy of Science recommendation. 

So we have reached a crossroad, Mr. President. The job of fixing this program is ours. The time for fixing the program is now.
Much progress has been made at Yucca Mountain. The 5-mile exploratory tunnel will soon be complete. If Yucca is found on
unsuitable or is not licensed, it will be vital that we have a centralized interim site. I have a simple bottom line. We must chart a
safe, predictable, and sure course to interim and permanent waste storage. There can be no trapdoors, Mr. President. I don't
want to have to stand here next year or the year after doing this again. We have to ask ourselves, do we want to move the
waste or simply leave it where it is? 

We can choose now whether the Nation needs 80 interim storage sites, or just one. The arid, remote Nevada test site, where
we have exploded scores of nuclear bombs during the cold war, is a safe and remote location for a monitored interim site. The
time is now. I think S . 104 is the answer. So ask yourself, do you want to leave the waste where it is, in 40 States at 80 sites?
Or do you want to move the waste from your State to one location, and that is the Nevada test site? 

I reserve the remainder of my time for the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents of the legislation have? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Five minutes. 

Mr. REID. The proponents have how much time? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 33 seconds. 

Mr. REID. I ask the Chair to advise the Senator when I have used 2 minutes. 

Members of the Senate, you have seen bad legislation in your day, but this is the worst. S . 104 , as written, was bad. S . 104
in the substitute form is just as bad. People like Senator Bingaman have tried to improve this legislation. Senator Bingaman
worked very hard. They tinkered with the edges. The proponents tried to pacify Senator Bingaman and others, and the
legislation was not improved upon with their tinkering. 

This legislation is bad in its substitute form and in its amended form. They have failed to deal with the transportation system at
all. They haven't dealt with it. In Germany, in recent months, they tried to move six casks. They called out 30,000 police to
take care of that--30,000. There were 170 people injured and 500 arrested. It cost $150 million to move it less than 300
miles. The German parliament is reconsidering the program. There is nothing in this legislation to allow it to be carried through
your State safely. Every environmental group in America opposes this legislation. 

The terrorism possibilities with this legislation are replete, as we laid out on the floor yesterday. The Washington Post is only
one newspaper that said `don't do it.' Many newspapers throughout the country have said `don't do it.' 
The President is going to veto this because it is bad legislation, as agreed upon by his Secretary of Energy, head of the EPA,
and by the Council of Environmental Quality. We picked a scientific group to give us insight and oversight of this legislation.
They have told us that this legislation is bad. We, the Congress chartered these scientists. They are not from Nevada. They are
bipartisan scientists, and they said the legislation is bad. 

The United Transportation Union doesn't like the legislation. Doctors oppose this legislation. Churches, like the Lutheran
Church and the Baptist ministry oppose this legislation. A group of environmentalists who deal with Native Americans in this
country 

oppose this legislation. 

This is bad legislation. If you want to cast a good vote, vote against this. It is a bad bill. 

I reserve the remainder of my time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Time will be charged equally against both sides. 

                                         [Page: S3138]

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, what the Senate is asked to do this morning is a total repudiation and rejection of good science.
S . 104 is opposed by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a body of eminent scientists, created pursuant to an act of
Congress. They reviewed it last year in 1996 and last year. They say two things. First, it is unnecessary. Second, it interferes
with the citing process, which is currently taking place. We dismantle the environmental laws in America if we enact this
legislation. 

In 1992, the Energy Efficiency Act directed the National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with EPA to develop a
standard. They are about ready to do that. This legislation rejects that standard and proposes a limitation on the ability of the
National Academy of Sciences and the EPA to develop the standard that would provide minimal protections for health and
safety. 

The third point that needs to be made is that the Nevada test site is frequently referenced. That is the proposed site for the
alternative storage, the interim storage. No study has ever been made that would indicate that the Nevada test site is either
desirable or suitable as an interim storage facility. 

The fourth point I make is that this legislation, in fact, preempts laws in my own State, unlike it does any other State in
America. The environmental protection laws are essentially delegated to the States with their ability to enforce. This legislation
would preempt that ability. So in Nevada we could not enforce clean air, clean water, safe drinking, RCRA, and other
provisions. 

The fifth point is that the National Environmental Policy Act is gutted by the provisions. It is bad legislation. I urge my
colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the remainder of my time. 

Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the sky is not falling. The National Academy of Science adopts standards and EPA uses them.
That is in the bill. Save $25 to $30 billion. Honor our commitment since 1982 to abide by the law and the contracts of our
Government and the Federal court and find a single, safe repository for nuclear waste. This is the number one environmental
bill this year, if you are concerned about 80 sites spread across this country. The issue is good policy. S . 104 is good law. The
Senate ought to support it unanimously. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 24 seconds. 

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, let me take 12 seconds. It is late in the game. Any Senator who believes we do not eviscerate
and emasculate the standards set by the National Academy of Science, look at page 37, my friends. That is why no
environmental organization in America supports it; they all oppose it. 

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we have engaged in this debate on the nation's strategy to deal with temporary storage of
high-level nuclear waste, I have come to several conclusions. Certainly storage is a troublesome issue that has remained
unresolved for the past 16 years. As time has gone by, it has become clearer and clearer that the Nation needs a more comprehensive strategy, not a piecemeal
strategy, to handle all the issues associated with long-term storage of nuclear waste. Furthermore, given the vehemently strong
opinions expressed by citizens, administrators, State and local officials, and others who would be affected by a centralized
storage plan, I believe we need to have the utmost confidence in the way we choose to dispose of spent fuel. 

When we began to consider the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, I was optimistic about our ability to work toward the
common goal of providing guidance on this issue. Supporters of the bill made an extremely credible case to me that something
needs to be done. The Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 set up a trust fund to help pay for the cost of a permanent geologic
repository. As part of the deal, the Department of Energy was directed to contract with utilities to accept spent fuel at a
permanent repository by 1998, but now it cannot. The Nation's nuclear reactors have begun to run out of space for spent fuel
in pools at reactor sites. Soon, more and more utilities will have to build above ground storage casks. I am sympathetic to the
frustrations expressed by State governments and utilities over this breach. I am sure many of my colleagues agree with me. 

Another issue that demands attention is the Nuclear Waste Fund. Congress has established 172 trust funds financed by
taxpayers for specific purposes. Few have maintained their integrity in the spending process. The Nuclear Waste Fund is one
of the few where the Government entered into an actual contract to perform a duty--to take on spent nuclear fuel by a time
certain. Considering the history of this issue, I am opposed to the idea that ratepayers, who have already contributed over $12
billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund for the construction of a permanent repository, should also have the cost of on-site storage
passed on to them. Louisianians have paid over $140 million into this fund since 1982, with no results. This is unacceptable.
The public should be getting its money's worth. Otherwise, the money should not be spent. 

Conversely, and most importantly, I am hesitant to commit to the construction of an interim storage facility if there are
uncertainties associated with the designated permanent repository site. So much rests on a decision to place an interim site near
Yucca Mountain. Will we transport the waste more than once if Yucca Mountain is unsuitable? How wise is it to ignore 

this possible outcome? This body several years ago requested a study from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Their
findings were illustrative of the complexity of this effort. It seems that a particular element was found in the exploratory tunnel at
Yucca Mountain. This element is generally present when there is fast flowing water in a location. No one expected this finding.
Nor did anyone expect the Board to determine that utilities could go on safely storing nuclear waste at reactor sites for another
decade. Both these findings show that certainties are hard to come by, even when from all indications, a clear outcome is
expected. Mr. President, we should not create a nuclear waste policy based on incomplete information. This issue is just too
important. 

For these reasons, I am unable at this time to support S . 104 . I believe that the rationale for a comprehensive approach to
waste storage is evident. The working process I have witnessed over the last few weeks between the leaders on this issue, if
continued, could result in a measure that addresses all of the concerns raised by industry, State and local administrators
including tribes, and the administration. I have felt for some time that a compromise on the provisions of S . 104 exists. In fact,
a compromise was nearly achieved. 

Mr. President, it is said that a rolling stone gathers no moss. I submit that we cannot afford to let moss grow. We need to
adopt a clear policy sooner rather than later on this question. I am disappointed that compromise could not be found at this
time, but I urge my colleagues to continue to work on finding solutions so that we can have a sensible nuclear waste policy for
this Nation. 
In closing I will say that permanent storage of nuclear waste is something that we need to do--we need to do it once and only
once. It is of paramount importance that it be done correctly and to the satisfaction of all. 

                                         [Page: S3139]

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks about S . 104 , the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. 

Last year, I voted against S . 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996 for several reasons. I felt that the measure rushed
to build the interim site before the viability of the permanent site was considered. Also, under last year's bill, NEPA, the
National Environmental Policy Act, would not have applied until quite late in the game, after great time and resources had been
expended. It only would have applied to the licensing of the facility. It wouldn't have applied to construction of the facility at all.
Finally, the radiation standards provided in S . 1936 were too lax, and EPA was virtually shut out of the process of setting
such standards. Last year's bill was a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, and I chose to leave it. 

When S . 104 was reported by the Energy Committee earlier this year, I had every intention of opposing the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, S . 104 , again. But this year, the Energy Committee has worked hard to address the concerns that were raised
about last year's proposal. After reviewing the changes made in the Murkowski substitute amendment, I have decided to vote
in favor of the bill before us. While it is not perfect, the substitute is a significant improvement over last year's bill and this year's
bill as reported by the Energy Committee. Is it a perfect bill? Not at all, but it is a far more reasonable solution to a terribly
difficult situation than we have ever had before. 

Years ago, Congress rejected reprocessing as an alternative to waste storage. There aren't a lot of options when it comes to
disposing of nuclear waste. Either it stays on site, or it goes to a centralized storage facility. I support centralized storage of
nuclear waste; however, I believe that the effects of designating a central site must be considered before such a critical decision
is reached. 

The Department of Energy is committed to completing a viability study of Yucca Mountain as the permanent repository by the
end of next year. Until that study is completed, I feel strongly that there is no reason to go forward with an interim facility at the
nearby test site in Nevada. Under last year's bill, as well as the bill reported by the committee, the viability 

study was disregarded. Site preparation and construction would begin upon enactment of the legislation. Senator Bingaman
worked closely with Senator Murkowski and the Energy Committee to address this issue. The committee substitute
amendment specifically precludes any work, beyond generic design, from going forward at the interim site, before the viability
study of Yucca Mountain is completed. I also supported Senator Bingaman's amendment, which would have ensured that the
interim storage facility would not become a de facto permanent repository if Yucca Mountain were deemed to be unsuitable.
Regrettably, that amendment failed. While I was disappointed with the failure of this amendment, it was not enough to cause
me to vote against the bill. Simply put, I believe it is highly unlikely that the viability study will be negative. 

The substitute also strengthens the role of NEPA. Site preparation, construction, and the use of the interim facility are no longer
exempt from NEPA. In fact, no construction at the interim site could proceed before an environmental impact statement is
completed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is an enormous improvement over last year's bill, which disregarded
NEPA at every step prior to the licensing of the facility. 

The process for setting standards to protect the public from radiation at the Yucca Mountain site also is a marked
improvement over previous measures. Rather than setting an arbitrary statutory standard, the substitute incorporates recent
recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in setting an overall radiation standard for the repository. 

Let me close by saying that the arguments on both sides of this issue have been persuasive. I want to recognize the undaunted
persistence of Senators Bryan and Reid in articulating the potential implications of the bill and in arguing relentlessly for the
interests of Nevada. I also want to commend Senator Murkowski for his hard work and determination. Senator Murkowski
ably managed this very complex measure and was willing to accept suggestions and changes from other Senators that vastly
improved the bill. 

The bill, as passed, did not resolve all of my concerns, but it did resolve most of them. 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. My State of
Connecticut is heavily dependent on nuclear power. I have long supported this energy source, and long been concerned about
how to safely dispose of its waste. 

I support the need for a national, permanent, geological repository for nuclear waste, but I cannot support the bill before us
today. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandates construction of an above-ground, interim storage facility even before the
scientific findings on the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain are completed. The Department of Energy has said that the
viability studies for Yucca Mountain should be completed in 1998. 

I remain concerned that construction of an interim facility would effectively stifle efforts to establish a permanent, geological
repository. It is a costly and risky diversion from what should be our primary goal in this area: finding a safe, permanent place
to store our nation's nuclear waste. We have already spent almost $5 billion on the permanent facility and it is not even
finished. It is estimated that the interim facility would cost an additional $2 billion. 

Let me remind you that the interim facility is above ground. If for any reason the scientific assessments for Yucca Mountain are
negative, either the interim facility would become the de facto permanent repository without establishing its suitability as such,
or the waste would have to be moved again. Either alternative is unacceptable. 

One of the main reasons that I cannot support this bill, is my fear of what could happen if we must move the nuclear waste
multiple times. Let us not forget that transporting nuclear waste is inherently risky and any accident or act of terrorism could
prove disastrous. I do not want our communities in Connecticut and around the Nation to be at risk because we acted
imprudently. 

The supporters of this bill have tried to assure us that transporting nuclear waste is safe, and that environmental safeguards
would be in place. I am convinced that this bill does not adequately protect public health and safety and that too many
environmental laws are weakened. 

In fact, this bill restricts the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] ability to set a drinking water standard at the nuclear
waste repository. Let me remind you that last Congress the Senate passed the Safe Drinking Water amendments by a
resounding vote of 98-0. Clearly, upholding Federal drinking water standards should be a priority in Nevada no less than in
Connecticut. EPA is further restricted in its ability to adequately protect the population from radiation emissions. Granted, EPA
can continue to set the annual acceptable dose limit for radiation exposure, but the bill remains vague on any further action that
EPA could take to protect the public health and safety from dangerous emission levels. Furthermore, language in the bill is so
vague that it is unclear whether compliance with the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act would be required. 

It seems to me that threatening public health and safety is the price of expediency. State laws that could slow the process of
interim storage are simply preempted. The National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], passed by Congress in 1969,
establishes an environmental impact process for major Federal projects, like Yucca Mountain. The goal of the environmental
impact process is to look at all alternatives to ensure that the most environmentally sound alternative is chosen. This bill
severely restricts the NEPA decision-making process regarding transportation and the design of either repository. In effect, the
public has no role in the decision-making process. 

Now, I would like to clarify a few statements that have been made during this debate regarding the State of Connecticut. 

I recognize the importance of safely storing nuclear waste and the impact this has on my State. It has been said that the
situation in Connecticut is urgent. However, it is my understanding that there is sufficient capacity. The fuel pool at one of the
facilities in my State should be able to accommodate waste from the other reactors until the end of their licenses and well into
the next century. Decisions concerning the fourth facility, Connecticut Yankee, await a final decommissioning plan. 

Last week, my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, mentioned a Hartford Courant editorial that, I might say, only
marginally supported the bill. In fact, I believe the editorial was entitled, `The Lesser of Two Evils'--hardly a rousing
endorsement. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record another Connecticut editorial. This one is from the
New London Day, a newspaper located in the southeastern part of Connecticut, just down the road from three of our nuclear
reactors. The editorial, entitled, `Nagging Nuclear Waste Problem,' states that `Many safety advocates believe that waste
should not be sent to Yucca Mountain unless the facility is designated as suitable to hold the material long-term.' The editorial
goes on to say that, `Otherwise, opponents say, if the site is ultimately found to be unsuitable, waste will have to be shipped
out again. It doesn't make any sense to have nuclear waste from 109 plants shipped all over the country unless it can be
shipped once.' 

Mr. President, I concur with the rationale of the New London Day. We should wait for scientific verification of Yucca
Mountain as a permanent storage site, before shipping nuclear waste throughout Connecticut and our country. 

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: 

                                         [Page: S3140]

Nagging Nuclear-Waste Problem

America's difficulty in finding a solution to permanent storage for nuclear waste isn't confined to these shores. Europe is in an
uproar about the same issue. A salt mine in the German town of Gorleben has been chosen as an interim storage disposal
facility for German nuclear waste. The decision sparked widespread protests. 

Adding outrage to the protests was the derailment of a train carrying casks holding radioactive material bound for the site. The
casks weren't harmed. But the accident illustrated the point of opponents, which is that radiation shouldn't be shipped all over
Europe. 

The Senate Energy Committee is set to vote on a similar interim-storage facility for America, designating Yucca Mountain,
Nev., for that distinction. The president has threatened to veto such a bill if it reaches his desk. 

WAITING MAKES SENSE

President Bill Clinton is right. Although the country needs a site for nuclear waste, and an interim storage facility is appealing, it
probably makes more sense to wait until a permanent facility is approved. 

Many safety advocates believe that waste should not be sent to Yucca Mountain unless the facility is designated as suitable to
hold the material long-term. Otherwise, opponents say, if the site is ultimately found to be unsuitable, waste will have to be
shipped out again. It doesn't make any sense to have nuclear waste from 109 plants shipped all over the country unless it can
be shipped once, stored * * *. 

So far, though, the political process has been maddeningly inadequate to handle this touchy subject. Congress for years has
forced the nuclear industry to pay billions to help build a storage facility that was supposed to be up and running by the end of
this century. Instead, that facility won't open for at least a decade. In the meantime, all over the country nuclear plants'
40-foot-deep, spent-fuel pools are filling up with spent nuclear waste. The pools were never designed for long-term storage. 

It might make more sense to rebate to the industry some of the many millions it has sent to the government to spend on other
things while Congress and the Energy Department delayed building a waste facility. With the money, the nuclear plants can put
their spent fuel rods in dry-cask storage, considered an expensive but extremely safe method of storing nuclear fuel. 

The typical `cask' for such a task is 18 feet long, 8 1/2 feet in diameter and made of concrete. It weighs 90 tons fully loaded
and holds anywhere from nine to 25 fuel rods. This type of storage is considered safer than spent-fuel pools, because the pools
have been known to leak occasionally, risking exposure of the fuel. 

The best of all possible worlds would be for our political system to prove adequate to such thorny problems as nuclear waste.
So far, such has not been the case. So the safest interim solution must be sought. With 109 plants around the country, shipping
waste to a temporary facility seems short-sighted. Better to choose the safest temporary solution, and work for a permanent
answer. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The question occurs on final passage of S . 104 , as amended. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] is necessarily absent. 

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] would vote `nay.' 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows: 

Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.

                                     [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                                            YEAS--65

     Abraham 
     Allard 
     Ashcroft 
     Bennett 
     Bond 
     Brownback 
     Burns 
     Chafee 
     Cleland 
     Cochran 
     Collins 
     Coverdell 
     Craig 
     D'Amato 
     DeWine 
     Domenici 
     Enzi 
     Faircloth 
     Frist 
     Gorton 
     Graham 
     Gramm 
     Grams 
     Grassley 
     Gregg 
     Hagel 
     Harkin 
     Hatch 
     Helms 
     Hollings 
     Hutchinson 
     Hutchison 
     Inhofe 
     Jeffords 
     Johnson 
     Kempthorne 
     Kohl 
     Kyl 
     Leahy 
     Levin 
     Lott 
     Lugar 
     Mack 
     McCain 
     McConnell 
     Moseley-Braun 
     Murkowski 
     Murray 
     Nickles 
     Robb 
     Roberts 
     Roth 
     Santorum 
     Sessions 
     Shelby 
     Smith (NH) 
     Smith (OR) 
     Snowe 
     Specter 
     Stevens 
     Thomas 
     Thompson 
     Thurmond 
     Warner 
     Wyden

                                            NAYS--34

     Akaka 
     Baucus 
     Biden 
     Bingaman 
     Boxer 
     Breaux 
     Bryan 
     Bumpers 
     Byrd 
     Campbell 
     Coats 
     Conrad 
     Daschle 
     Dodd 
     Dorgan 
     Durbin 
     Feingold 
     Feinstein 
     Ford 
     Glenn 
     Inouye 
     Kennedy 
     Kerrey 
     Kerry 
     Landrieu 
     Lautenberg 
     Lieberman 
     Mikulski 
     Moynihan 
     Reed 
     Reid 
     Sarbanes 
     Torricelli 
     Wellstone

                                        NOT VOTING--1

     Rockefeller 

The bill (S . 104 ), as amended, was passed, as follows: