Murkowski: We are starting this bill with 63 votes. That is what we had last year. It is no secret that we are seeking a higher number. So we are prepared to adopt amendments today to further address the concerns of some Members who have indicated concerns to the White House as well and to generally try to tackle all reasonable concerns that still may persist about the bill. We have developed this substitute amendment. We have worked closely with Senator Bingaman, and I commend him and his staff for their hard work.
Let me go over the amendments very briefly, point by point. S. 104 sets the size of the interim storage facility at 60,000 metric tons. Opponents of S. 104 have charged that the large size of this interim storage facility diverts resources away from the permanent repository at Yucca.
The Senators from Nevada have also incorrectly stated that it is our intent to make the interim repository the de facto permanent repository. Clearly, that is not the case.
Our amendment allows the Secretary to set the size of the facility based on the emplacement. Initial capacity would be 33,100 metric tons. This adequately addresses charges made by the critics of S. 104 that the repository is too large, and it makes it clear that the interim facility can never be a substitute for a permanent repository.
As we have said all along, the work at Yucca for the permanent repository will go on; it must go on. This provision in our substitute makes it clear that it has to go on.
S. 104, as reported, envisioned the initial operation of a central storage facility by December 31 in the year 2002, if Yucca Mountain is determined to be viable, and December 31, 2004, if it is determined not to be viable. Critics of S. 104 charged that this did not allow adequate time for the NEPA and the NRC licensing process to work.
Our amendment addresses these concerns by shifting those dates to June 30, 2003, and June 30, 2005.
S. 104 sets a 100-millirem dose standard that could be reviewed and changed to protect public health and safety. Critics of S. 104 argued that this was not good enough and that there should be a risk-based standard as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.
Our amendment, therefore, mandates full EPA involvement in the setting of the risk-based radiation protection standard that is likely to result in a standard of 25 to 30 millirem. This is the approach endorsed by the Senators from Nevada I believe yesterday.
S. 104 ensured that the State and local jurisdictions could not hamstring Federal intent by allowing the Atomic Energy Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act to preempt all
inconsistent laws. Critics charged that this preemption authority was too broad because it allowed Federal laws to be preempted as well.
Our amendment, therefore, makes it clear that our bill would preempt State and local laws only, only where State intransigence prevents Federal purposes. We have adopted a more narrow approach that attempts to I think bring in a careful balance of State and Federal law.
We do not preempt Federal law. Therefore, let us be very clear about what we have attempted to do with our amendment here today. We have worked to address all the key objections of critics of S. 104 and still have a bill.
The statement of administration position and the recent letters sent to the majority leader by the Secretary of Energy really are not referring to the bill that incorporates the amendments we proposed here today, so their objection, if you will, is inappropriate because it does not relate to the changes we have made, and we look forward to any comments the administration might make with regard to these adjustments.
Let me go over each of the administration's criticisms and how we have addressed them. The administration's position initially stated that S. 104 would `effectively replace EPA's authority to set acceptable release standards.'
Mr. President, I am going to need about 3 more minutes here with no objection from my colleagues from Nevada. I would ask that they be extended 3 more minutes as well.