99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 107–425

APPROVAL OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

MAY 1, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the

Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. TAUZIN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.J. Res. 87]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred

the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) approving the site at Yucca

Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, having considered the

same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 6

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 6

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 6

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 6

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 9

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 9

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 9

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 9

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 9

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 9

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 10

2

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of H.J. Res. 87 is to approve the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal

of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in accordance with procedures under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The nation’s high-level radioactive waste inventories primarily

consist of spent nuclear fuel from operating and decommissioned

commercial nuclear power plants, and spent nuclear fuel and highlevel wastes from U.S. government defense activities. Approximately 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from past and ongoing commercial nuclear power operations are currently stored at 72

sites throughout the country. An additional 2,000 metric tons of

spent nuclear fuel are generated annually by operating nuclear

power plants. The total amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel

is expected to reach approximately 60,000 metric tons by the year

2010. The U.S. government’s high-level radioactive waste inventories are stored at five sites nationwide, and include 2,500 metric

tons of spent fuel from U.S. Naval Operations and defense production activities, weapons-usable surplus plutonium, and over 100

million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes from DOE defense

production activities.

The NWPA established a system for identifying and selecting a

site for permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and also created the Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management (OCRWM) within the Department of Energy

(DOE) to carry out the program. Pursuant to the NWPA amendments of 1987, Congress selected the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada as the single site to be characterized by DOE for long-term

geologic disposal of the nation’s high-level radioactive waste inventories.

The Yucca Mountain site is located in Nevada on the southwest

corner of the DOE Nevada Test Site, adjacent to the Nellis Air

Force range. DOE’s environmental impact statement and site recommendation to the President set forth comprehensive information

with respect to the Yucca Mountain site and the current plans for

the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste

there. These documents currently envision the disposal of some

70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high level radioactive

waste deep below the surface of Yucca Mountain in excavated,

interconnecting tunnels well above the present day water table. According to DOE, the natural features of the mountain, as well as

engineered barriers including the waste packages, will work in concert to isolate radionuclides from the environment for thousands of

years. Consistent with his recommendation of the Yucca Mountain

site, the Secretary of DOE testified before the Committee that the

site location, geologic barriers, and design elements for the repository will protect the health and safety of the public.

According to the DOE Total Life Cycle Cost Report for the Yucca

Mountain site, DOE has already spent $6.7 billion on the repository program, and estimates that approximately $50 billion will be

spent during the lifetime of the Yucca Mountain project. The

3

NWPA established the Nuclear Waste Fund (the Fund) to pay for

the costs of characterizing and developing a permanent repository.

The Fund is derived from fees collected from a 1.0 mil per kilowatthour assessment on all electricity generated by commercial nuclear

power plants, as well as equivalent assessments on quantities of

spent fuel or other high level wastes to be disposed of at Yucca

Mountain from Federal agencies. In return, the Secretary is required to accept title, subsequently transport, and dispose of a generator’s spent fuel and high-level wastes. The NWPA required the

Secretary to begin disposal of these wastes not later than January

31, 1998.

In December 1998, pursuant to Congressional direction in the

1997 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, the Secretary of Energy determined that Yucca Mountain was viable for

further development as a repository site. Following the completion

of site characterization activities under section 113 of the NWPA,

and a series of hearings held in the State of Nevada required under

section 114, on January 10, 2002, the Secretary of Energy recommended the development of the Yucca Mountain site to the

President. On February 15, 2002, the President transmitted his

recommendation to Congress recommending the Yucca Mountain

site, based on his decision that it is qualified for application for a

construction authorization for a repository. On April 8, 2002, the

Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the Speaker of the

House a notice of disapproval, and a statement of reasons why the

Governor disapproved the recommended repository site. Following

the State of Nevada’s disapproval, section 115 of the Act provides

that the site shall be disapproved unless Congress passes a resolution of repository siting approval within 90 legislative days, and

this becomes law. The procedures for House consideration of such

a resolution are set forth at section 115(e) of the NWPA.

Should a resolution of siting approval be enacted, thereby overriding Nevada’s disapproval, DOE still cannot begin construction

activities until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues a

license for construction authorization to DOE. Pursuant to section

114, NRC has been reviewing DOE’s site investigation activities to

ensure that adequate information is available for a license application. NRC is responsible for enforcing health and safety standards

through the licensing process that includes the application of

groundwater protection standards for the Yucca Mountain site previously set by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Act directs NRC to issue a final decision approving or disapproving the

application within three years, with a possible 12 month extension.

NRC will continue to oversee repository operations after any license is granted. The public will have opportunities during the

NRC license review period to review, comment, and request hearings on the license application, and the Commission’s decision will

be subject to judicial review. Pursuant to NWPA section

114(a)(1)(E), NRC testified that, based on its technical reviews and

pre-licensing interaction with DOE, it believes that sufficient information can be available for a license application.

As required by the Act, the President’s February 15, 2002 recommendation to Congress was based on the Secretary’s recommendation and accompanying comprehensive statement. Section

114 of the NWPA also required the Secretary to submit a final EnVerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:14 May 02, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR425.XXX pfrm01 PsN: HR425
4

vironmental Impact Assessment that analyzes the impact of the

proposed action to transport and dispose of radioactive wastes at

Yucca Mountain. The documents are too voluminous for inclusion

in this report, but are publicly available through DOE’s Internet

website. Each of these documents may be obtained electronically at

www.ymp.gov/new/secondpage.htm.

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing entitled ‘‘A Review of the President’s Recommendation to Develop a

Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada’’ on April

18, 2002. The Subcommittee received testimony from: The Honorable Jim Gibbons, U.S. House of Representatives, The Honorable

Shelley Berkley, U.S. House of Representatives, The Honorable

John Ensign, U.S. Senate; The Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; The Honorable Greta Joy

Dicus, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; The

Honorable Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Jared L.

Cohon, Chairman, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board; Mrs.

Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team,

U.S. General Accounting Office; The Honorable Laura Chappelle,

Chairwoman, Michigan Public Service Commission, on behalf of

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; Mr. Joe

F. Colvin, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute; Mr. Jim

Dushaw, Director, Utility Department International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers; and, written testimony from Ms. Joan

Claybrook, President, Public Citizen.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and

Air Quality met in open markup session and approved H.J. Res. 87,

approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development

of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and

spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Policy Act of 1982 for

Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a roll call

vote of 24 yeas and 2 nays, a quorum being present. On Thursday,

April 25, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup session

and ordered H.J. Res. 87 favorably reported to the House by a roll

call vote of 41 yeas and 6 nays, a quorum being present.

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion

to report legislation and amendments thereto. The following is the

recorded vote on a motion by Mr. Tauzin to order H.J. Res. 87 reported to the House, without amendment, including the names of

those members voting for and against.

5

6

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight hearing and

made findings that are reflected in this report.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of H.J. Res. 87 is to approve the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal

of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in accordance with procedures under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.J. Res. 87,

approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development

of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and

spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Policy Act of 1982,

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1984:

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.

Hon. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.J. Res. 87, approving the

site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lisa Cash Driskill (for

federal costs) and Elyse Goldman (for the state and local impact).

Sincerely,

STEVEN LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

7

H.J. Res. 87—Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for

the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear

Waste Policy Act of 1982

Summary: H.J. Res. 87 would provide Congressional approval of

the site at Yucca Mountain. Nevada, for the storage of nuclear

waste. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA),

such approval would allow the Department of Energy (DOE) to

apply for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct a nuclear waste storage facility on the approved site. Enacting H.J. Res. 87 would not alter the contractual relationship between DOE and those electric utilities with nuclear power plants

to dispose of nuclear waste in exchange for the payment of annual

fees. The resolution would not affect direct spending or receipts, so

pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

Congressional approval of the Yucca Mountain site is required

before DOE can proceed with its plans to spend about $10 billion

over the next several years to develop the Yucca Mountain site and

begin receipt of waste in 2010. Based on information from DOE, we

estimate that implementing H.J. Res. 87 would require the appropriation of about $12 billion over the 2003–2012 period, to pay for

licensing, construction, and waste transportation activities over

that period. All such spending is subject to appropriation.

H.J. Res. 87 could increase the costs that Nevada and some local

governments would incur to comply with certain existing federal

requirements. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) is unclear about whether such costs would count as new mandates

under UMRA. In any event, CBO estimates that the annual direct

costs incurred by state and local governments over the next five

years would total significantly less than the threshold established

in the law ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).

H.J. Res. 87 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in

UMRA.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.J. Res. 87 is shown in the following table. The

costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 270 (energy)

and 050 (defense).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending under current law for nuclear waste

disposal:

Budget authority 1 ....................................... 375 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays ........................................ 366 48 0 0 0 0

Proposed changes:

Estimated authorization level ..................... 0 527 900 1,100 1,500 2,000

Estimated outlays ........................................ 0 369 788 1,040 1,380 1,450

Spending under H.J. Res. 87 for nuclear waste

disposal:

Estimated authorization level 1 ................... 375 527 900 1,100 1,500 2,000

Estimated outlays ........................................ 366 465 788 1,040 1,380 1,850

1 The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year.

Basis of estimate: If the Congress enacts H.J. Res. 87, DOE expects that it would apply for a license to construct a storage facility

at Yucca Mountain sometime in 2004 and that the site would be

8

ready to accept nuclear waste in 2010. The Department of Defense

and DOE have requested $527 million for this program for fiscal

year 2003. Based on information contained in DOE’s May 2001 report, Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management Program, CBO estimates that implementing the resolution would require the appropriation of about

$6 billion over the 2003–2007 period and about $12 billion over the

2003–2012 period to prepare the site to dispose of waste. This estimate includes program management, licensing, construction, and

transportation of waste to the site.

In accordance with the NWPA, on February 15, 2002, the President recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain, Nevada,

be used for the storage of nuclear waste. Also in accordance with

the NWPA, on April 9, 2002, the Governor of Nevada provided the

Congress with a notice of disapproval of the site. Following the

Governor’s disapproval notice, the Congress is now deciding whether to enact legislation approving the site. Without such legislation,

the notice of disapproval would stand, and there would be no further consideration of a nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca

Mountain.

Spending on nuclear waster disposal activities would very likely

continue in the absence of H.J. Res. 87, but CBO has no basis for

estimating the likely level of such spending. If H.J. Res. 87 were

not enacted, spending on the nuclear waste program could be higher or lower than shown in the above table, depending on how the

program might be restructured. If Yucca Mountain is not used as

a nuclear waster repository, such spending might include funding

for interim storage, further study of alternative disposal sites, or

other program options.

In the May 2001 report, DOE estimates the future cost to con- duct the nuclear waste program is about $50 billion, in constant

2000 dollars, from 2001 through closure and decommissioning of

Yucca Mountain in 2119. According to DOE, about $9 billion has

been spent since 1983 studying nuclear waste disposal sites and

preparing a recommendation for use of the Yucca Mountain site.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: While

the resolution, by itself, would establish no new enforceable duties

on state, local, or tribal governments, shipments of nuclear waste

to the Yucca Mountain site would increase costs to the state of Nevada for complying with other existing federal requirements. Additional spending by the state would support a number of activities,

including emergency communications, emergency response planning and training, inspections, and escort of waste shipments.

UMRA is unclear about whether such impacts on other existing

federal requirements would count as new mandates under UMRA.

In any event, CBO estimates that the annual direct costs incurred

by state and local governments over the next five years would total

significantly less than the threshold established in the law ($58

million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.J. Res. 87 contains no

new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Lisa Cash Driskill; impact

on state, local, and tribal governments: Elyse Goldman; impact on

the private sector: Lauren Marks.

9

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in Article I, section 8, clause

3, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Pursuant to section 115(a) of the NWPA, the text resolution is

as follows: ‘‘That there hereby is approved the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the State of Nevada on

April 8, 2002.’’ The text of H.J. Res. 87 is taken directly from section 115 of the NWPA, with the three blank spaces in the statutory

text filled in as follows: (1) The first blank space is filled with the

name of the geographic location of the proposed site of the repository (Yucca Mountain, Nevada); (2) The second blank space is filled

with the State Governor submitting the notice of disapproval (the

Governor of the State of Nevada); and, (3) The last blank space is

filled with the date of submission of the notice of disapproval (April

8, 2002).

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute.

(10)

DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES MARKEY,

CAPPS, ESHOO, PALLONE, HARMON, AND WAXMAN ON

H.J. RES. 87 APPROVING THE SITE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN,

NEVADA, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A REPOSITORY FOR

THE DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

We oppose H.J. Res. 87, approving the site at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of

high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The decision to

go ahead with licensing Yucca Mountain is premature. There exist

too many unresolved scientific, security and safety issues for us to

support moving forward at this time.

The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act originally directed the Department of Energy to consider five, geologically different sites and

to eventually select two repositories—one east of the Mississippi

and one west. However, in 1987, the act was amended for political,

not scientific, reasons so that Yucca Mountain was the only site

that could be studied. H.J. Res. 87 continues the pattern of trumping science with politics, which will inevitably endanger the health

and safety of the nation, not just the citizens of Nevada.

The science behind Yucca Mountain fails to assure the safety of

the site. The independent government Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recently graded the technical basis for DOE’s recommendation as ‘‘weak to moderate,’’ and said, ‘‘The Board has limited confidence in current performance estimates generated by the

DOE’s performance assessment model.’’ The International Atomic

Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency review of DOE scientific

and technical work found that ‘‘in general, the level of understanding of the hydro-geology of the site * * * is low, unclear and

insufficient to support an assessment of the realistic performance.’’ Furthermore, a recent General Accounting Office report revealed

that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated

there are 293 complex technical issues that the DOE must resolve

before it can submit a license application to the NRC. Bechtel has

indicated that at least 10 of the 293 technical issues will not even

be resolved until 2004. Some specific concerns include: • According to the GAO report, NRC’s Advisory Committee on

nuclear waste has raised concerns about the models that DOE is

using to predict how water and radionuclides might travel through

the repository and therefore how quickly radioactivity would be released into the environment. The Advisory Committee believes that

DOE has used inconsistent assumptions and assumptions that are

not supported by experimental evidence. • A 1999 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study contradicted the assumption that plutonium could not migrate in the natural environment by showing that plutonium had migrated at the

Nevada Test Site in less than 50 years.

11

• A Los Alamos National Laboratory study demonstrated that

chlorine—36 ‘‘fingerprints’’ of above ground nuclear testing have

been found in the interior of Yucca Mountain, suggesting that

water from the surface has migrated 1000 feet to the repository

level of the mountain within 50 years. • The DOE has only 2 years worth of corrosion data for the canister allow yet they are extrapolating this data to 10,000 years. • The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board notes that the

DOE has not updated its work on radiation exposure to reflect new

information on how fast the radioactive elements are transported.

This casts doubts onto their claims that Yucca Mountain would

meet the Environmental Protection Agency standard. • According to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the

repository could get as hot as 350 degrees Fahrenheit, but the DOE

has little data about corrosion of the waste canisters over 244 degrees and none above 275 degrees. Higher temperatures would

most likely speed up corrosion of the canisters—but DOE has not

even bothered to check.

In order to transport the tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive nuclear materials and wastes to the potentially flawed

Yucca Mountain repository, the waste would have to be moved

through the majority of the contiguous 48 states. Based on DOE estimates, a nuclear waste shipment would have to leave a site somewhere in America every 4 hours for 24 years. Proponents of this

resolution suggest that it is the solution to having dangerous nuclear waste at reactors in close proximity to communities. What

they fail to admit is that reactors would still have waste on site— the very waste that is ‘‘too hot to handle’’ and that poses the greatest threat to public health. As long as spent nuclear fuel is created

at reactors, it will have to be stored onsite for 5 years as it cools.

Moreover, Yucca Mountain will only hold about 60% of the total civilian and military waste that will need to be stored. At some

point, Yucca Mountain will be full and these reactors will have to

store the waste onsite permanently. We will still have waste at all

103 operating nuclear reactors nationwide, and then we will add to

that the thousands of tons on the road, in barges and on rails. We

do not believe that this enhances the security of our constituents;

in fact, it may well threaten their security. We all know that accidents happen and the shipment of nuclear waste is not immune

from the laws of probability as the following points illustrate:

• In the past 50 years, there have been an estimated 3,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste, and 72 accidents. Within the

first 2 years of Yucca opening, the number of shipments would exceed that of the past 50 years. Probability would dictate therefore

that there will be 72 accidents in the first two years the waste is

on the road.

• According to DOE’s accident reports, there have been 72 ‘‘incidents’’ involving nuclear waste shipments since 1949. Four of these

accidents involved ‘‘accidental radioactive material contamination

beyond the vehicle;’’ four involved radiation contamination confined

to the vehicle; and 49 involved accidental container surface contamination.

• The drop test used to test whether the casks can survive a

crash reportedly used a crash speed of only 35 miles per hour—

12

when the trucks will be driving 65–70 miles per hour on their way

to Las Vegas.

• The puncture test used to certify casks reportedly tests only a

40-inch drop of a cask onto a spike—surely, if a truck transporting

the casks was forced off a bridge the drop would be far greater

than that.

Accidents are not the only worry. From admissions made by Al

Qaeda operatives to diagrams of nuclear reactors found in caves of

Afghanistan, we know that terrorists are trying desperately to

build dirty bombs or homemade nuclear weapons. The Transportation Security Division at DOE, which is responsible for transporting nuclear weapons, failed 6 out of 7 of its security force-onforce exercises. And when DOE recently requested $18 million to

‘‘increase security personnel and equipment to bolster protection for

nuclear weapons shipments within the country, to include engineered container modifications that significantly increase security

for U.S. nuclear warheads,’’ the White House said no. If we cannot

be assured that the nuclear weapons are safe and secure or that

DOE will even have the necessary resources, how can we be sure

about the security of the thousands of shipments of nuclear waste

that will be sent through hundreds of communities in America?

In light of the scientific and transportation uncertainties, the decision to move forward with Yucca Mountain is premature. Under

section 114(a)(1) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Secretary’s recommendation is supposed to be based ‘‘on the record of

information developed by the Secretary under Section 113 and this

section, including the information described in subparagraph (A)

through subparagraph (G),’’ which include providing an explanation

of the relationship between the packaged waste and the geologic

medium of the site and providing a final environmental impact

statement. The GAO recently criticized DOE for embarking on this

reckless course, questioning the ‘‘prudence and practicality’’ of

making the recommendation at this time. Although all the technical and scientific issues will not be resolved until at least 2004,

the recommendation is being made now. This assures that the necessary approvals will eventually materialize since it will be too late

and too expensive to do anything else. With 293 outstanding technical issues to resolve with the NRC and the other scientific questions mentioned earlier, we do not believe the Secretary has met

the requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Secretary

claims they will be answered in the future. But allowing the license

application to go forward at this point is like allowing a medical

student to treat patients after claiming that he will complete his

medical training over the next few years.

Proponents of Yucca Mountain point to the amount of money already invested in the project. They claim that voting against this

resolution would take the process back to square one. But they are

wrong. If this resolution failed, DOE could continue to do site characterization work and come back to Congress when they have actually answered the science questions and could assure the security

of the shipments and we would vote on it again. Defeat of the resolution does not stop this work, since the only specific provision of

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that deals with this is Sec.

13

113, which stops such work only if DOE determines Yucca Mountain is not suitable.

The decision on H.R. Res. 87 will last for 10,000 years. We need

more technical information before we, as policymakers, can decide

if the benefits of Yucca Mountain outweigh the danger to our constituents, the citizens of Nevada and future generations, who may

suffer from our rash decision.

We respectfully dissent.

EDWARD J. MARKEY.

ANNA G. ESHOO.

JANE HARMAN.

LOIS CAPPS.

FRANK PALLONE.

HENRY A. WAXMAN.

Æ