Congressional Record, Volume 133, Number 153, October 2, 1987

United States of America Congressional Record PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 100th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 733 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1987 Na 153 Senate ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS Mr. HECHT. Mr. President, in a few days the Senate will consider the energy and water appropriations bill. Attached to that bill is a provision that makes major changes in the Nation's high level nuclear waste program. This provision is identical to the one that the Energy Committee recently recently reported out as part of budget reconciliation, -and as a freestanding bill, S. 1668. S. 1668 would depart from the current program requiring three sites to be studied for a high level nuclear waste repository. Instead, S. 1668 would have the Energy Department characterize one site at a time. There are many who believe that my State, Nevada, would be pushed to the head of the line if these provisions are signed into law. The chairman of the Energy Committee has been very skillful in promoting this legislation. Attempts to stop the bill have failed in the Energy Committee, they have failed in the Appropriations Committee, and the outlook for a long, drawn out battle on the floor of the Senate is uncertain at best. I have opposed the chairman's bill in committee, and I will fight it when it reaches the floor of the Senate. My opposition is based on my belief, after extensive discussions with members of the scientific community, a tour of nuclear facilities in Europe, and study of methods used by other nuclear nations, that deep geologic disposal of spent fuel rods is not the safest, most cost-effective, or energy-efficient way for our country to deal with high level nuclear waste. The right approach is what is called the complete nuclear fuel cycle. This involves long-term storage and reprocessing of spent fuel, recycling the energy so it can benefit our Nation. It was a mistake for our Nation to stop reprocessing nuclear waste. Every other major nuclear nation in the world reprocesses. Reprocessing is the answer, not deep geologic disposal of spent fuel. Reprocessing is the direction our Nation should be headed in, not the direction that is the primary thrust of this legislation. Deep geologic disposal has not been proven safe or effective. Reprocessing and above-ground storage, on the other hand, are in active use at nuclear facilities around the world. As this legislation is debated, there will be lots of discussion about where a repository should be located. The problem is, we will be debating the wrong question. The question is not where we should put it, but, why we should have one at all. During the course of the coming debate I will be an active participant. My purpose will not be to obstruct the process but to inform my colleagues. The legislation puts us on the track toward deep geologic disposal. My efforts will not be aimed at derailing this train. They will be aimed at putting us on a different track, a track leading to a safer and more logical .handling of nuclear waste. To bury it 'in the ground is just plain wrong. In recognition of the chairman's ability to marshal votes on this issue, I have worked on a dozen amendments to this bill that substantially improve it, not just for Nevada, but for the Nation as a whole. These amendments were accepted by the chairman, adopted by the Energy Committee, and are incorporated into the bill that will soon be considered by the Senate. While I vigorously oppose this bill and the future it plans for this country, I urge my colleagues to keep these amendments which will protect any State forced to have a deep geologic repository. I don't believe that the basic thrust of S. 1668 is in the national interest, and I will once again oppose it. But if the Congress is determined to pursue this course of action, then I want to help make the package as good as possible, for all the people of America, and the people of Nevada in particular. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a description of my 12 amendments that are incorporated into S. 1668 be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Adopted Hecht Amendments to S. 1668 The first amendment requires a study of the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel of different ages. One of the primary arguments against reprocessing has been the reprocessing is not cost-effective. But most economic analyses of reprocessing have focused on using spent fuel that is only a few years old. My amendment is designed to find out whether, as some have suggested, it is far less expensive to reprocess spent fuel that has been aged for decades, than it is to reprocess relatively fresh spent fuel. The second amendment requires that Federal agencies use only those nuclear waste packages that are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Energy Department has occasionally used waste packages that were not approved by the NRC. My amendment prevents this from happening in the future. The third amendment requires the Department of Energy to abide by the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for notifying States before high level nuclear waste is shipped. Many State and local governments have not received the sort of advance notice from the Department of Energy that they deserve. My amendment would strengthen the hand of State governments in demanding greater cooperation from the Energy Department in this regard. The fourth amendment requires DOE to provide Federal money and assistance to train State and local agencies involved with high level nuclear waste transportation. If the Federal Oovernment insists on inflicting waste shipments on State and local public safety agencies, then the Federal Oovernment ought to provide some degree of training for State and local agencies to cope with these shipments. My amendment provides for this training. The fifth amendment requires that waste package prototypes be submitted to actual tests, not just to computer simulated tests. I dont believe that the people of America are willing to take for granted the safety of waste packages that have only been tested! on a computer screen. I think they deserve | to hfeve a full-scale prototype subjected to actual, real-world tests. This is what my amendment accomplishes. The sixth amendment requires our Government to examine other nation's waste packages to see if any are safer than what we plan to use in this country, and to report to the Congress on the results of this survey. The seventh amendment requires DOE to pay for onsite State oversight, for quality control of site characterization and repository construction. Wherever a repository is located, the State government needs to be able to have its own independent assurance that the work is being done correctly. The eighth amendment requires DOE to consult with the Department of Defense and certify that a repository site to be named by the President would not jeopardize national defense activities taking place nearby. It would make little sense to put a repository in a place where it will interfere with activities that are essential to our national defense. Without my amendment, our country might some day have to choose between endangering our national security or abandoning a nuclear waste repository. The ninth amendment requires a study of the advantages of future research on sub-seabed disposal. For more than a decade the United States participated in an international research effort in this area, but abandoned this research prematurely this fiscal year. The scientific community, the electric utilities, and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners have all publicly recognized the need for increased research in this area. The 10th amendment requires DOE to report to the Congress on the local impacts of siting a repository, and to make recommendations as to the Federal Government's responsibilities for mitigating those impacts. The sorts of impacts to be addressed include those relating to public health and safety, social services, transportation systems, and local economic activity. The 11th amendment requires that the State that gets stuck with the repository receive special consideration for DOE research contracts. Any State that bears the national nuclear waste burden is certainly entitled to an increased share of beneficial Federal projects that would enhance instead of detracting from the quality of life of the citizens of that State. The 12th amendment, which I co-authored with Senator Evans, requires a study of the advantages of storing high level nuclear waste for at least 60 years before moving it to a repository. Current law would allow .spent fuel to be shipped to a repository {after only 5 years. Other countries are planning on a cooling off period of 40 or more years. I don't think it is wise to move 5-year-oM fuel around the country. We should let it age, cool off, become less radioactive, and become easier and safer to handle.