[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16] [Senate] [Page 23564] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]NUCLEAR TROJAN HORSE Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, physicians use a specially engineered radioactive molecule as sort of a nuclear Trojan horse in the battle against pancreatic cancer. The molecule is absorbed by the cancer cells and only by the cancer cells. Once inside, the radiation breaks up the DNA and kills the tumor cell--another amazing tool in the war on cancer. The physicians, technicians and even clean-up crews must carefully dispose of the medium that stored the radioactive molecule and other items that may have come in contact with the radioactive materials. There are strict procedures for disposing of such wastes by hospitals, universities, power plants and research facilities. But, in a way, that waste itself is a Trojan horse, sitting innocently in garages or closets in sites all over the country, waiting to be opened up and released on the public by an act of terrorism or of nature like the recent floods the East sustained, or the earthquakes and wildfires more common to the West coast. Most dangerous would be fire which would put the radioactive materials into smoke that could be breathed by anyone near the fire. Why is this a problem? Because there are only three facilities in the entire country that safely can accept such low-level radioactive waste, LLRW: that is material contaminated as a result of medical and scientific research, nuclear power production, biotechnology and other industrial processes. In 1996, about 7,000 cubic meters of LLRW was produced in the nation. A study released by the General Accounting Office at the end of September 1999, holds out little hope for the construction of any new low-level radioactive waste disposal sites as envisioned under the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980. That legislation resulted from states lobbying through the National Governors' Association (NGA) to control and regulate LLRW disposal. An NGA task force, that included Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas and was chaired by Governor Bruce Babbitt of Arizona, recommended the states form special compacts to develop shared disposal facilities. The GAO study, which I requested, states, ``By the end of 1998, states, acting alone or in compacts, had collectively spent almost $600 million attempting to develop new disposal facilities. However, none of these efforts have been successful. Only California successfully licensed a facility, but the federal government did not transfer to the state federal land on which the proposed site is located.'' Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stopped the California facility at Ward Valley from ever becoming reality. National environmental groups and Hollywood activists made Ward Valley a rallying cry, claiming waste would seep through the desert to the water table and into the Colorado River. They claimed to believe this despite two complete environmental impact statements that found no significant environmental impacts associated with a disposal facility at Ward Valley in the Mojave Desert. Secretary Babbitt asked the National Academy of Science to convene an expert panel to determine whether the Colorado River was threatened, and said he would abide by their conclusions. In May 1995, the Academy scientists concluded that the Colorado River was not at risk. Yet, the property was never transferred. But the importance of this issue extends well beyond the borders of the State of California or the borders of its fellow compact members, Arizona, and North and South Dakota, which thought they had a deal with the federal government. The losers are all Americans who believe the President and the executive branch should uphold federal law, not ignore it and obstruct it for the sake of campaign contributions. The GAO states that several reasons are behind the rest of the states giving up on siting new waste disposal facilities. Public and political opposition is cited as the strongest prohibiting factor. Another reason is that, for the time being, states have access to a disposal facility at Barnwell in South Carolina, Richland in Washington State and Envirocare in Utah. A very positive reason cited is the reduction in the volume of low-level waste that is being generated, with waste management and treatment practices including compaction and incineration. However, the report cautions, ``Within 10 years, waste generators in the 41 states that do not have access to the Richland disposal facility may once again be without access to disposal capacity for much of their low-level radioactive wastes.'' Barnwell could decide to close or curtail access as early as 2000, and, at best, will only be open until 2010. The Utah facility disposes of wastes that are only slightly contaminated with radioactivity and thus is not available for all storage. In ten years states will be searching for storage as well as disposal. That storage will be near every university, pharmaceutical company, hospital, research facility or nuclear power plant. It may be down the street from you or within your city limits. And we have the Clinton administration to thank for bringing the materials into our communities like a quiet Trojan horse instead of working with states to establish a secure waste facility. Let's hope nothing ever opens the belly of the beast accidentally. ____________________