I thank the Chair. I observe, for the benefit of my friend from California, for whom I have the utmost and fondest regard, that accepting this amendment means her State gets considered as a possible alternative for interim storage. The State of California currently has approximately 1,319 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste that is stored in California. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, there will be 2,639 metric tons. So the point is, if we leave it where it is, which is what we will do with the amendment offered by my friends from Nevada, waste is simply going to stay where it is. As a consequence, at some point in time somebody will have to do something with it. To do something with it implies you have to move it. We have heard fear, fear, fear. We move money in armored cars. We used to move it in stagecoaches. We protected it. We protect it in armored cars. We will protect waste, if you will, in casks. This movement is not just helter-skelter. They have moved, in Europe, 30,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste. They moved it safely. That does not mean an accident could not happen or that a terrorist activity could not happen. But they have moved it. It has not been designed, if you will, to be easily lifted. It is very, very heavy and very difficult. The containers are built to maintain a degree of security unknown in any other type of engineering device.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to nuclear waste storage in California.
Share
More from Lisa Murkowski
Environmental DNA is an innovative, cost-effective tool that will give our scientists a clearer picture of our fisheries while expanding survey coverage and reducing costs. This legislation is the product of extensive collaboration with…
ALS is indiscriminate and devastating. It can strike any of us, and it will take all of us working together to support those affected and help end this terminal disease.
“I am also keenly aware that the Department’s nearly $2-billion dollar slush fund—which likely would have rewarded January 6 protesters—is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage.”
I will continue to champion this program and work with the Department to ensure this funding is administered more expeditiously going forward.





