[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15200-S15201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues an issue of great importance to Nevada, but should be of 
concern to those from other States as well.
  Mr. President, for 13 years, since 1982, Nevada has been the prime 
target of the nuclear power industry for the disposal of its high level 
commercial nuclear waste.
  In spite of the fact that Nevada has no nuclear reactors, commercial 
or otherwise, and never benefited from nuclear power, Nevada has been 
identified by the nuclear power special interest lobby as its chosen 
site for the disposal of one of the most poisonous, dangerous 
substances known to mankind.
  Since 1987, as the result of a backroom deal reached during the 
deliberations of a conference committee, Yucca Mountain, 90 miles 
northwest of Nevada, has been the sole site being studied by the 
Federal Government for a high-level nuclear waste dump.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, the repository program has been a 
dismal failure.
  Despite the expenditure of nearly $5 billion, a repository is no 
closer to being built today than it was in 1982, when the original 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed by Congress.
  Faced with the failure of the permanent repository program, and 
frustrated by the Federal Government's obvious inability to accept 
nuclear waste from commercial reactors anytime near the originally 
planned 1998 deadline, the nuclear power industry and its advocates 
decided to initiate another, even more dangerous, assault on Nevada.
  Raising the specter of widespread shutdowns of nuclear power reactors 
across the Nation, and demanding adherence to the obviously impossible 
1998 deadline, the nuclear power industry now demands that the Federal 
Government immediately build so-called interim storage facilities at 
the Nevada test site.
  This new attack on the health and safety of Nevadans is coming at us 
from all angles.
  Numerous bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to target 
Nevada for interim storage--all written by the nuclear power industry, 
and all fiercely opposed by Nevada's Governor and congressional 
delegation, and the vast majority of Nevadans.
  At the same time, we face the prospect of another back room deal on a 
conference report singling Nevada out for a dump it wants no part of.
  In spite of the fact that neither the House or Senate energy and 
water appropriations bills would allow interim storage to be 
constructed in Nevada, by all indications, the conference report may 
target Nevada as the sole site for interim storage.
  Mr. President, nothing could be less fair to the citizens of my State 
and I, and the rest of the Nevada congressional delegation, will do 
everything possible to see that this provision does not pass.
  Mr. President, as you may expect, we in Nevada fear that should a 
nuclear waste dump of any type ever be built in our State, the health 
and safety of Nevadans will be severely threatened.
  With 16,000 shipments of highly toxic waste arriving from across the 
Nation, the potential for a catastrophic accident near Las Vegas, a 
community of 1 million residents, is enormous.
  Mr. President, while Nevada faces the greatest risk, and is at the 
most peril should the nuclear power industry get its way with Congress, 
every Senator should take a careful look at exactly what is being 
proposed.
  As citizens across the Nation are slowly beginning to realize, the 
nuclear power industry is proposing to ship, at the earliest date 
possible, an unprecedented volume of shipments of extremely poisonous, 
highly toxic high level nuclear waste--over 16,000 shipments across 43 
States, by both rail and truck.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues' attention to the proposed 
shipment routes. Each Senator will note that his or her State may be a 
candidate for this massive shipment with all the risks that are here by 
way of accident or other unforeseen consequence. Even though the plan 
sadly targets Nevada out here as the ultimate repository, it will pass 
through the States of most of my colleagues. I emphasize that they too 
and their constituents are at risk, as are my constituents.
  Mr. President, my colleagues should look closely at this map, because 
this map shows the likely routes for the transportation of high-level 
waste in the very near future.
  As I pointed out a moment ago, nearly every State would be effected.
  The nuclear power industry, of course, is quick to claim that we have 
nothing to worry about, that nuclear waste transport is perfectly safe.
  Mr. President, I doubt many of my constituents, or those of other 
Members, would put much faith in the nuclear power industry's 
assertions.
  Quite simply, accidents do happen. While only a relative few make the 
national news, the United States has nearly 1,500 rail derailments a 
year.
  Heavy truck accidents occur approximately six times for each million 
miles traveled which, if applied to the thousands of truck shipments 
under the nuclear power industry's plan, would result in at least 15 
truck accidents involving nuclear waste each and every year.
  The events of the past week raise even more frightening 
possibilities. In addition to the potential for accidents, nuclear 
waste shipments could become prime targets for acts of sabotage or 
terrorism.
  Monday's sabotage of the Sunset Limited near Hyder, AZ, is a stark 
reminder of the dangers we face from criminals and terrorists every 
day. In a matter of minutes, those responsible for the Sunset Limited 
wreck created a derailment which took the life of one passenger, and 
injured numerous others.
  From the reports that I have read, Mr. President, that sabotage took 
approximately 10 minutes to effect.
  In an ironic twist, this week's act of sabotage appears to be a 
copycat of the August, 1939 derailment near Harney, NV, that killed 24 
passengers.
  The simple fact is that no one, not the nuclear power industry, not 
the Department of Energy, and not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no 
one can guarantee the safety of the transportation of nuclear waste.
  Sound public policy dictates a cautious approach to the transport of 
such hazardous materials. They should only be moved if absolutely 
necessary. This is simply not the case with nuclear waste.
  Nuclear waste is currently stored on-site, at the 109 nuclear power 
reactors in the United States--80 percent of them east of the 
Mississippi River.
  These sites, of necessity, will remain storage facilities for nuclear 
materials at least as long as the reactor continues to operate--several 
decades, if not longer. Technology Mr. President, currently exists--dry 
cask storage--that is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 
available for utilities to purchase if they need additional storage.
  Numerous utilities have taken advantage of this technology, and have 
moved to dry cask storage. Outside of the local political problems many 
reactors face when they try to increase storage, there is simply no 
reason any utility needing additional storage could not do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator that his 8 
minutes has expired.

[[Page S 15201]]

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent for 
an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank again the Chair for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, the point I would seek to make this afternoon is this 
is not just a Nevada issue. Look at the map. Forty-three States are 
affected by these proposed nuclear waste shipment proposals. And each 
State bears a risk of an accident or an act of sabotage, an act of 
terrorism with all of the frightening consequences that brings to bear 
on those States and the constituents of those States being represented 
here in the U.S. Senate.
  The plans being advanced by the nuclear power industry threaten the 
health and safety of citizens across the Nation, for no good reason.
  The crisis mentality generated by nuclear power industry propaganda 
is nothing new. In the early 1980's, advocates for the nuclear power 
industry argued on the Senate floor, and elsewhere, that unless some 
away-from-reactor plan called AFR storage was provided by the Federal 
Government soon, reactors across the Nation would shut down, creating 
an electricity crisis for millions of Americans. Of course, no reactors 
have ever shut down for lack of storage, and there is no crisis. The 
same is true today.
  Mr. President, the reality is that the nuclear power industry is a 
dying industry. No new reactors have been ordered for over a decade, 
not because of lack of storage, but because nuclear power is simply not 
competitive in the marketplace. In an ill-founded and irresponsible 
attempt to jump-start a dying industry, nuclear utilities have advanced 
a proposal that places the population of 43 States at risk, all for the 
benefit of the bottom line of the commercial nuclear power industry.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the nuclear power industry's interim 
storage proposal.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________