[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7636-S7646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we were discussing before the senior
Senator from Indiana asked for a recess for the European
Parliamentarians, we have a lot to do in this body. I hope we can do a
welfare reform bill. It is part of the Democratic families first
agenda. It is something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have said that they want to pass, and I believe that.
I am a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I have
responsibilities with my friend from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. I am
the ranking member of a subcommittee, and we passed out of this body,
with bipartisan support, a safe drinking water bill. That conference is
now ready to meet. We should get a bill back here and debate that
conference report and pass, for the people of this country, the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Health care reform: Health care is important. There is no way that we
are going to be able to do all that needs to be done with health care,
but we need to do what is possible to go with health care. Can we not
do the portability of insurance? Can we not handle preexisting
disability? We need to finish that important issue.
The only appropriations bill that we have passed is one that is
chaired by the junior Senator from Montana, and I am the ranking member
of that subcommittee, military construction. It was a bill that passed
here on a bipartisan basis. We had very good debate on the underlying
issues when the defense authorization bill came up. We had fully
exhausted talking about those military construction matters when the
military construction appropriations bill came up. When it came up, it
passed out of here without a contrary vote.
There are many things that we need to do here that are doable, but
the more time we waste on issues like nuclear waste, an issue that the
President has said he is going to veto--interim storage--we are taking
away from the important matters at hand.
I repeat, we were lectured today by my friend, the senior Senator
from Utah, about the situation with the White House Travel Office.
Listening to my friend from Utah, I think that is an issue that needs
to be debated at length, because there are two sides to every story.
Maybe Billy Dale is entitled to be compensated for all of his
attorney's fees, but that would set a kind of strange precedent in this
body that any time a Federal prosecution goes awry, we reimburse the
defendant, who is acquitted, for his attorney's fees? Think about that
one as a precedent-setting matter.
I have also seen a letter that was written on Billy Dale's behalf to
the Justice Department that he would agree to plead guilty to a felony.
I have also seen that one of the reasons that criminal prosecution was
considered is he used to take part of the money home with him every
night--I do not know about every night--but he would take cash home
with him, kept it in his home. I think that would raise some suspicions
in some people's minds.
Maybe Billy Dale is entitled to be reimbursed for his expenses. Maybe
there are some overwhelming merits on his behalf of which I am not
aware. But it is not a slam dunk, as the Senator from Utah would lead
us to believe.
So, should that not be something we talk about here? The President
has not said he is going to veto that. But, no, what we are being told
is we are going to go to S. 1936, a bill that the President of the
United States, Bill Clinton, has said he is going to veto. It will take
up time of this body and take up time of the other body in conference.
The President said he is going to veto it. Why should he not veto it?
It is one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation that I can
even imagine. I am sure there are more, but I do not know what they
would be.
[[Page S7637]]
Remember, the 1982 act said that you could not put the permanent
repository and the temporary repository in the same State. What S. 1936
tries to do is it says we are going to set that longstanding policy
aside and site both the temporary storage and permanent storage in the
same State. Is it any wonder that the President said, ``This is unfair,
and I'm going to veto it?''
Our Nation's nuclear powerplants are operating and have the
capability to manage the spent fuel for many decades. There is no
emergency. There will be no interim storage problem for decades. I have
heard every year that I have been in this body that there is an
emergency. They have cried wolf so many times. To this Senator they
have cried wolf 13 or 14 times. There is just no reason that we
continually hear these cries: ``Please help us, we have no alternative.
You've got to help us.''
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question under the preceding
request that is outstanding that I not lose my right to the floor if it
is a question.
Mr. BRYAN. Apropos to the Senator's comment that we have heard time
and time again that there is a crisis that is unfolding, does the
Senator recall back in the early 1980's when a program that was
referred to as the away-from-reactor-storage concept, which is similar
to the interim storage that we are dealing with, that the nuclear
utilities in America came forward and indicated that if they did not
have away-from-reactor-storage capability--this was in the early
eighties--that by 1983 there may be brownouts across the country, that
nuclear utilities would be forced to close with all kinds of electrical
distribution crises appearing in cities across the country?
And if the Senator recalls that, does this not seem like a familiar
refrain of the old cry of wolf again and again and again because, in
point of fact, as I understand it--and I invite the Senator to respond
to my question--there really is no crisis? There is no reason for us to
be on an issue such as the S. 1936 bill, as the Senator mentions.
Does the Senator recall that history? The Senator has been in this
Chamber longer than I have. But this is such a familiar refrain to this
Senator.
Mr. REID. I remember very clearly that plea for mercy. ``We have to
do it or we can't survive.'' The Senator is absolutely right. They said
there would be parts of the United States that would have no power,
there would be brownouts. Of course, there have been some brownouts,
but those had nothing to do with nuclear power.
Mr. BRYAN. I believe, if the Senator would yield for a further
question----
Mr. REID. I will yield for a question.
Mr. BRYAN. I believe that the state of the record will bear this out,
that no nuclear utility in America has ever been required to close or
cease generation of power because of the absence of storage.
Mr. REID. The Senator is absolutely right. It is very clear that the
cooling ponds are sufficient. But one of the interesting things that my
colleagues should understand is, since 1982, the scientific community
has been working on a number of scientific endeavors relating to
nuclear waste.
One of the things they have worked on is, if we are going to
transport nuclear waste, we have to do it safely. How can we do it? You
just cannot throw it in the back of a truck. You cannot just throw it
in one of the boxcars. So they have worked and they have come up with
something called a dry cask storage container. With a dry cask storage
container, they said, you know, I think we can transport this stuff
safely.
I will talk a little later how probably--not probably; there are
still some safety problems in transporting. But all the scientists say
you can store nuclear waste on site in a dry cask storage container and
that will be perfectly safe because you do not have the problems with
train wrecks and truck wrecks and fires on-site.
Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator would yield for a further question.
Mr. REID. I will yield for a question.
Mr. BRYAN. It is my understanding of the state of the record that in
point of fact some nuclear utilities today are storing their high-level
nuclear waste on-site in the facilities which the Senator has just
described, dry cask storage. So as I understand it, we are not talking
about some theoretical or technical possibility. We are talking about
technology off the shelf, currently available, being used by many
utilities and available currently today.
Mr. REID. The Senator's question is directly to the point. It is
absolutely true. It is now beyond the planning stage. Dry cask storage
containers work. They work better when you leave them on-site. Then you
do not encounter the problems, as I indicated, with train wrecks and
truck wrecks and firings and those kinds of things. So the Senator is
absolutely right. The current law has health, safety and environmental
safeguards to protect our citizenry from risks involved in moving and
disposing of high-level nuclear waste.
S. 1936 would effectively end the work on a permanent repository and
abandon the health, safety and environmental protection our citizens
deserve. I am not talking about just Nevada citizens; I am talking
about citizens of this country. It would create an unneeded and costly
interim storage facility. It would expose the Government and its
citizens to needless financial risk.
So, Mr. President, why are we here addressing this issue instead of
issues that need attention, actions that will improve the condition of
the average American, instead of this bill, which will only improve the
bottom line of the nuclear power industry, at best?
We are here because the nuclear industry wants to transfer their
risks, their responsibilities, and their legitimate business expenses
to the American taxpayer. This has been their agenda for almost two
decades. They think that now is the time to close the deal. They want
the nuclear waste out of their backyard and into someone else's
backyard. They do not care what the risks are.
The bill is not in the best interest of the people of this country.
It should not become law. Because of Bill Clinton, it will not become
law. The President will veto this. If we do not have the foresight, Mr.
President, to kill it here and now, the President will veto it.
S. 1936 is not just bad, it is dangerous legislation. It tramples due
process and it gives the lie to the claims of support for self-
determination and local control, made with great piety by some of our
membership. It legislates technical guidelines for public health and
safety, arrogantly assuming the mantle of ``the Government knows
best,'' when in actual fact this branch of Government knows virtually
nothing about these technical issues. It mandates a level of risk to
citizens of this country and the citizens of Nevada that is at least
four times the level permissible at any other radioactive waste
facility.
Mr. President, let me go over this chart again that I did with my
colleague from North Dakota. There is no exposure level--there is no
exposure level--any place in the country, anyplace in the world, that
has laws like this.
The EPA safe drinking water, 4 millirems per year; NRC Low-Level
Nuclear Waste Site, 25 millirems per year; the EPA WIPP facility in New
Mexico, 15 millirems per year; the Independent Spent Nuclear Fuel
Storage Facility, 25 millirems; the International Exposure Range, 10 to
30.
What do we have in S. 1936? One hundred millirems. I mean, look at
it. Why would we allow radiation exposure levels to individuals that
have anything to do with nuclear waste in Nevada 4 times, 10 times, 20
times what it is in other places, other agencies? It just simply is
wrong.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my colleague for a question.
Mr. BRYAN. If I understand what the Senator is saying, this is
absolutely astounding. Is the Senator suggesting that the EPA has said,
as a safe drinking standard for America, 4 millirems? That is per year?
Mr. REID. Four millirems is the correct answer.
Mr. BRYAN. As the Senator well knows, the WIPP is a facility in New
Mexico designed to receive transuranic nuclear waste. Is the Senator
indicating for the good citizens of New Mexico, 15 millirems?
Mr. REID. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BRYAN. And that the citizens in the State of Nevada--we were
admitted to the Union, if I recall, before the
[[Page S7638]]
good State of New Mexico--but somehow for the rest of America, they
have a 4-millirem standard for safe drinking water, at another nuclear
storage area in our country they are proposing 15 millirems, but in the
State of Nevada from a sole source, a single source, they are
suggesting that Nevadans would have to accept a standard of 100
millirems from one source on an annual basis? Is that what they are
suggesting?
Mr. REID. My colleague is absolutely right, absolutely right. In
Nevada they are saying, ``We're going to pour this cement pad and dump
this out. If it leads to 100 millirems exposure, that is OK.'' That is
what they are saying.
Mr. BRYAN. I must say, it prompts the question in this Senator's
mind. There must be more to this than we understand. Somehow, in a
deliberative chamber, that there would be a suggestion made that health
and safety standards, which presumably are legislated for the Nation,
and with each of us entitled to equal protection under the law, and
presumably I would think we would be entitled to equal protection in
terms of health and safety standards, that a Congress which purports to
be interested and concerned with the rights and sovereignty of States,
individual States, would suggest that one State out of the Nation, and
one State alone, would have a standard applied to that State that is 25
times the safe standard for safe drinking water and would be more than
6 times the standard that the citizens of our southwestern State, New
Mexico, would be subjected to for the transuranic, that somehow we have
a standard of 100 millirems.
Mr. REID. The Senator is correct. The answer is yes. As the Senator
from North Dakota, in questions to this Senator earlier in the day
asked, is there any reason for that? No. There is no scientific basis.
There is no scientific theory. There are only people who want to jam
this down the throats of the people in Nevada saying, ``Don't worry
about it. It will be OK.''
Mr. BRYAN. I must say, the thought occurs to this Senator, and the
question arises in this Senator's mind, that why would any legislative
body seek to impose a standard on a single State that no other Member
of this body would be willing to accept for his or her State, when what
we are talking about is health and safety? We are talking about
potential dangers from the standpoint of cancer, genetic health
problems, all of which, as I recall, we experience currently as a
result of some of the atmospheric experiences in Nevada State in the
1950's and 1960's.
(Mr. ABRAHAM assumed the chair.)
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Nevada, the question is absolutely
pertinent. The answer is, we do not know why that standard is set.
There is no scientific basis. There is none whatever.
It goes to show how maybe the two Senators from Nevada were not such
great advocates after all to get the President of the United States to
agree to veto this. For Heaven's sake, why would we? On this basis
alone, the President should veto this legislation. On this basis alone,
he should veto this legislation, notwithstanding the fact that they are
trying to change the substantive law in effect since 1982, that you
could not have a permanent site and a temporary site in the same State.
The President of the United States has many, many reasons to veto this
bill. That is why he has said he will veto the bill.
Yet, what are we doing? We have 34 legislative days left until we
adjourn in October. I think it is 34 or 35 days. We are here talking
about nuclear waste. We should be talking about health care, welfare
reform, teenage pregnancy. We have a lot of things to do with pensions
that we need to do work on. We have 12 appropriations bills we could
better spend our time on. We have reconciliation. We have numerous
conferences we could be completing and here debating. But what are we
doing? We are going to spend days on a bill that the President has said
he is going to veto.
Now, the State of Nevada, I say to my friend, the Presiding Officer,
unlike his State, which is a very populous State, we are a small State.
For many, many years we were the least populated State in the Union. We
are used to having people say, ``Well, Nevada is not much. It is just a
big desert, so we will give you anything we want.'' I think they have
carried it too far in this instance. The President of the United States
acknowledges it has been carried too far.
We have sacrificed a great deal for this country, and we have been
willing to do it, the citizens of the State of Nevada. We have had
numerous military installations in the State of Nevada. We still have a
number. We have the most important airplane fighter training facility
in the world, one for the Navy at Fallon--the best. If you want to be a
Navy pilot and you want to be the best Navy pilot, you will train in
Fallon. If you are in the Air Force and you fly fighter planes, if you
want the Ph.D. of flying, you go to Nellis. Forty percent of the State
of Nevada airspace is restricted to the military. If you want to fly to
Nevada, you avoid 40 percent of the airspace in Nevada because this is
restricted. We have given a lot. We have been willing to do that.
There have been almost 1,000 atomic devices set off in Nevada, some
of them above ground, causing sickness and injury to people in Nevada
and wherever the clouds went--lots of people upwind, including some in
Utah. We sacrificed that.
There comes a time when the line has to be drawn. It has been drawn,
Mr. President. We are wasting our time on this bill. As long as this
bill is going to be brought before this body--there is no one that can
say the President will not veto it--we are wasting our time.
We are going to talk about this bill at great length. That is why we
have the Senate of the United States. That is why two Senators from
Nevada, a sparsely populated State, have as much right, as much
authority in this body, as Senators from very populated States like
Michigan, New York, Florida, Texas, and California.
The two Senators from Nevada, although we are a State now of about
1.6 or 1.7 million--small by most standards--we have as much right to
do whatever a Senator can do as our sister State of California, which
has 32 million people. We are here exercising our rights that were set
up in the Constitution of the United States. I carry one in my pocket,
a Constitution of the United States. It gives us the rights we have on
this floor.
We will do what we can to protect the State of Nevada. That is why we
are here. This is not some unique thing that a couple of Senators from
Nevada dreamed up. This is something that the Founding Fathers dreamed
up over 200 years ago. We will use the Constitution that has
established the Senate of the United States to protect the rights of
the people of the State of Nevada, and we believe in the rights of the
people of this country who are being misled and misguided by this very
dangerous law that is being proposed.
Mr. President, S. 1936 is not just bad, it is dangerous. It tramples
due process. I repeat, it makes light of the claims of support for
self-determination made with great piety by some of our membership. It
legislates technical guidelines for public health and safety,
arrogantly assuming the mantle that Government knows best, when, in
actual fact, as I have stated before, the Government knows virtually
nothing about these technical issues.
I repeat, because it is worth repeating, it mandates a level of risk
to Nevada citizens that is 25 times the level permissible at other
radioactive standards. Radioactive exposure levels deemed safe by the
sponsors of this bill are 25 times the level permitted by this Nation's
Safe Drinking Water Act.
This bill prohibits the timely application of Federal, State and
local environmental regulation activities that deal with some of the
most hazardous materials known to man. I do not qualify that: It deals
with the most hazardous substance known to man. I defy anyone to tell
me anything that is more dangerous and more potent that plutonium.
Why would the sponsors abandon these protections? Could it be because
this material is so hazardous that regulators of public health and
safety might interfere with this rush to move waste out of the
sponsors' and generators' backyards? Or could it be because there are
serious uncertainties about how much contamination is safe, so that
moving it around and storing it safely is a time-consuming and
complicated process? Could it be possible that the desire to make this
waste
[[Page S7639]]
someone else's problem is so intense that the proponents of this bill
and the generators of this poison have abandoned all pretense of caring
for our environment or caring for the health, safety, and prosperity of
our fellow citizens?
I say, Mr. President, look at this chart: 25 times the level of safe
drinking water, 4 times independent spent-nuclear-fuel storage; over 6
times more than the WIPP facility setup in New Mexico.
By denying the protections of environmental regulation, this bill
makes a mockery of significant advances this Nation has made in
promoting wise and prudent care for our increasingly fragile
environment. But the sponsors do not care because it will be someone
else's problem or at least that is what they think.
If they can do this to Nevada, what is next? Take, for example, a
State that borders on Nevada--Idaho. Idaho is a beautiful State. I have
floated down the Snake River. I have stayed at Sun Valley. It is a
beautiful State, sparsely settled. But assume that California or assume
one of the other States who have all the problems with landfills, solid
waste, they decide they want to bring their mountains of garbage, of
refuge that are accumulating in California or some other densely
settled Eastern State, where usable landfill space is rapidly
disappearing, and imagine the reaction if Idaho were made a garbage
dump by prohibiting applicable environmental law, by denying judicial
review of dangerous and intrusive activities and by legislative
definition of unacceptable health and safety standards. What would the
reaction be of the people of the State of Idaho, that beautiful State
of Idaho, which suddenly was told that they are going to be the
repository for mountains of garbage-- every kind of garbage? They will
just take it and pick a spot in Idaho and start dumping it. What would
their reaction be?
Idaho did not generate the garbage. Idaho did not benefit from the
products that generated this garbage. Their economy did not gain a
single cent from the sale of products that generated this garbage.
Idaho is just conveniently rural and is outnumbered by those who do
generate it, those who did benefit and enrich themselves through the
generation of the garbage. Could Idaho stop such a blatant, inexcusable
abuse of power in their own home State, or of its environment, or of
its future freedom to develop, occupy, or use its land? Could Idaho at
least take action to ensure the health and safety of its residents and
their children and their children's children in countless generations?
Well, could they?
Before the introduction of this bill, I would say, sure they could.
But if this bill is allowed to pass, that will not be the case. After
all, that is what this Government is all about, protecting the rights
of each and every one of us--our health, and protecting the security of
our homes, protecting the rights of each of us in the pursuit of
prosperity, assuring each of us the enjoyment of the freedoms of this
great land.
Mr. President, I am not so sure that we could not start dumping
garbage in Idaho. I am not so sure anymore because this bill proposes
to deny the appeal to legal authority that has assured these rights to
generations of Americans.
Mr. President, this bill denies due process and the rights of States
to protect its citizens. It denies due process by legislating against
legal injunctions against intrusive activity.
Mr. President, you, the occupant of the chair, are relatively new to
this body, but you came with the reputation of being a legal scholar,
really understanding the law. You are a graduate of one of the finest,
if not the finest, law schools in America. You did very well there
academically. I invite you to read this bill--you, as a person who
understands the law and what the law is meant to be. This law stops the
State of Nevada from going to court. How do you like that? That is what
it does.
The sponsors say: Well, you will get your day in court sometime. Mr.
President, I have tried about 100 jury trials. I always prided myself--
when I talked to the jury, I said, ``You know, a lot of things have
changed since we became a country. We no longer ride horses, we ride
cars, which was something that people never thought about. We have
airplanes, and we have gone to the Moon.'' I went through the process
of how things have changed. But I said, ``You know, one thing has not
changed since King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215. He gave those
barons a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. That was carried
across the ocean in the common law, and we have that right now--a trial
by jury.''
I was very proud to be a lawyer and representing people who had
problems that I thought I could help with. I also, on occasion, went to
court for injunctive relief. Well, I say to those people who know a
little bit about the law, read this bill. This changes the process of
the legal system in our country. The bill says that you can sue, but
you must wait a long time, and wait until there are a lot of actions
that take place--in fact, until there is a done deal before you can
even apply to court. It reverses the Nation's progress toward assuring
our offspring a safe and nurturing environment. It does it by delaying
assessments of environmental conferences until much of the groundwork,
if not all of it, has been done. The sponsors will say, ``But we have
not started construction yet.'' But the bill mandates land withdrawal,
acquisitions of rights of way, and development of rail and roadway
systems prior to the development of an environmental impact statement.
That is an unusual theory of the law. Of course, the damage has already
been done to the communities. Rights of way have been withdrawn. We
have had Federal land withdrawals. We have had the development of rail
and roadway systems prior to the development of an environmental impact
statement.
These abuses of legislative power to relieve the nuclear power
generating industry of its serious responsibility to manage and fund
its business affairs are outrageous, Mr. President. They are
outrageous, if not scandalous. It is more outrageous that this bill
would mandate radioactive exposure risks to the people in Nevada--
remember, we have millions and millions of visitors every year. It
would mandate radioactive exposure risks for citizens far above that
permissible in any other State--or foreign land, for that matter.
Did the sponsors single out Nevada residents for punishment? How can
this bill be seen as equal protection of the law when it is so
obviously not equitable, so clearly not protective of the Nevada
residents? Do the sponsors think they know so much that they can decide
what is OK for Nevada, but not OK for New Mexico? Why would the WIPP
facility have a 15 millirem standard and Nevada have a 100 millirem
standard?
If they think that they can decide what is OK for Nevada, how do they
explain that the permissible exposure level at the generator sites is
only one-fourth the level they say is OK for Nevada? The States in
which this waste is generated and presently stored--remember, there is
none generated in Nevada--and the businesses that profit from this
generation say that their residents and employees have four times the
protection they say is OK for Nevada.
I am trying to deal with this bill using the formal and really
courteous traditions of this great institution. But, Mr. President, I
am really upset. I am disgusted. I think this is wrong. I say that on
behalf of the people of the State of Nevada. The people in Nevada are
the first people whose health and safety, whose freedom to prosper and
rights to equal protection under the law are being attacked by the
nuclear power industry and the sponsors of this legislation. But they
may not be the last to experience this kind of treatment by their own
Government. If this bill is passed, it sets a dangerous precedent. The
big utilities are in control here.
Interim storage. S. 1936 explores new regions of outlandish
legislation by needlessly, and with great cost, requiring the
establishment of a temporary interim storage facility. This interim
storage facility is only a temporary facility, because it would be
developed under S. 1936 at a site that does not meet the permanent
repository requirements. So if Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable as a
disposal site, under S. 1936 an interim storage facility would have to
be developed somewhere else.
So, Mr. President, let us not play games here. In short, the reason
for
[[Page S7640]]
this legislation is to do away with the permanent repository. That is
what it is all about. They want to go on the cheap. They want to avoid
all the environmental standards that have been set by law, and they
want to shortcut it, because everyone knows that interim storage will
be permanent storage. It will not be buried geologically. It will be
dumped on top of the ground. But if it were only a Nevada problem and
it would somehow miraculously appear in Nevada, I can understand why
other States would not be concerned. But the fact of the matter is, Mr.
President, this is not only the concern of Nevada. It is a concern of,
and should be the concern of, States all over this country, because the
nuclear waste will be transported all over this country.
We know that we have had a few train accidents lately. In the last 10
years, we have had over 26,000 train accidents. We average about 2,500
train accidents per year.
Mr. President, I am going to again look at this chart that shows how
a lot of this activity is going to take place. Of course, we have a
picture here of a train wreck which is all too familiar. We recently
had one near the California border with Nevada, and the very, very
heavily traveled freeway between Las Vegas and Los Angeles was actually
closed because of a train wreck. The highway was about a mile from
where the railroad wreck occurred, but the materials in the train were
so caustic that they had to close the highway.
We have seen pictures of train accidents all too frequently. We also
had one in Arizona that is believed by all authorities--local, State
and Federal--to have been an act of terrorism. People are killed in
these accidents, and tremendous property damage is done. We know of one
train accident during this past year that burned for 4 days because of
the materials.
I have talked about train accidents. That does not take into
consideration the rail crossing accidents. Of course, in rail
crossings, we know how many people are killed. We all have in our
mind's eye the event that took place last year where the train took off
the back of a school bus, killing those children.
Rail crossing accidents--during the past 10 years, we have had almost
61,000 train accidents, about 6,000 a year. We have hazardous material
accidents averaging more than two a month on trains. We have hazardous
material accidents averaging more than two a month.
So this is not a problem only of the State of Nevada. It is a problem
of the people of this country, because the people of this country are
going to be exposed to thousands of trainloads and truckloads--I should
say, tens of thousands of trainloads and truckloads of the most
poisonous substances known to man. Arizona: 6,100 truckloads, 783
trainloads. California: 44 truckloads, 1,242 trainloads.
The other interesting thing--we will talk about this later--is where
trains go. Take through the Rocky Mountains. Colorado is a State that
is going to be heavily impacted with trucks and trains; 1,347 trucks
loaded, 180 trains.
I have never ridden a train through the Rocky Mountains in Colorado.
That is something I would like to do. I understand it is a beautiful,
very picturesque ride. But if an accident happens there like happened
in California, where it wrecked over the river and dumped all of the
chemicals into the river, it is very difficult to get to. It is very
difficult to get accident crews in to take care of the trains or the
truck. But not only do we have a problem with location, but we also
know that there are no train people to take care of these accidents.
Interestingly, we just received an evaluation of emergency-response
capability along the waste routes in Nevada. It would apply to any
place in the United States.
A study was done to assist the Western Governors Association in
planning for the onset of the U.S. Department of Energy's transuranic
waste shipments to the WIPP facility in Carlsbad, NM. As a result of
this, it was learned that there are some significant problems with
transporting nuclear waste. Remember, the quantity of nuclear waste
going to the WIPP facility pales in comparison to the waste that goes
to these other waste facilities. Contractors surveyed personnel from
fire departments, law enforcement officers, hospitals, ambulance
services, emergency management offices, State, Federal, and travel
agencies.
In short, in this report, which is entitled ``Evaluation of Emergency
Response Capabilities Along Potential WIPP Waste Routes,'' prepared for
the Western Governors Association, you find that there is no
preparation. There are no people that are trained to take care of these
potential accidents.
The study described four potential waste routes in detail, and it
asked questions. Is the current level of training and equipment
adequate for safety and to identify the hazard, isolate the
scene, notify the authorities in incidents involving the WIPP shipments
alone or in conjunction with other hazardous materials? The answer is
``No.''
Is there an emergency plan? Do these plans address the response to
radiological incidents in local jurisdictions? The answer is ``No.''
Do respondents feel that they are able to handle radiological
incidents? The answer is ``No.''
What other factors require emergency response near the jurisdiction?
They list numerous factors.
Mr. President, this brings me back to the point that we addressed
early on. Why are we doing this? Not only is it unnecessary to haul
these truckloads of nuclear waste all over the United States, haul them
partly in trains and ship them even farther, but why are we doing that,
especially when we can avoid the potential for accidents by just
leaving it on site, as we are told we should do? Why are we doing that?
To satisfy a few big utility companies that are afraid they will be
embarrassed because they have spent so much money on permanent
geological storage. They are unwilling to let the process go forward to
see what science will come up with. They want to short-circuit the
system. They want to trample on the rights of people in Nevada and all
over this country, and expose the people of this country to dangers
that certainly are unnecessary.
Interim storage is not necessary. For now, let me deal simply with
the fact that interim storage facility sites are not needed. We talked
about it a little bit. We will talk about it some more.
In accordance with its charter, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board this year--I answered this question for the Senator from North
Dakota earlier today. The one thing I failed to add for him is that the
decision they made is not stagnant, not stale. The decision they made
was made this year, 1996. They reported to Congress that it found ``no
compelling safety or technical reason to accelerate the centralization
of spent nuclear fuel. The board knows that of the more than 100
operating nuclear power reactors on 75 sites in 34 States, 23 will
require additional storage by the year 1998.'' Twenty-three will
require additional storage by 1998, and the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board knows that. It may be the year 2000, but we can say 1998.
The board also notes that implementation of dry cask storage at
generating sites is feasible and cheap. I told the Senator from North
Dakota how inexpensive it is to set up a dry cask storage facility, and
how cheap it is to monitor. In fact, the dry cask storage, if it is
properly implemented on site, the investment will double its return by
storing the material in certified, multipurpose transportation
canisters so the material is ready for shipment once the permanent
repository is designated. That could be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years,
or 100 years.
Operating costs for on-site dry cask storage amounts only to $1
million per year per site; capital costs for on-site storage in
preparation of an replacement site and cannisterization of this spent
fuel. Storing spent fuel in multipurpose canisters means that the
marginal on-site capitalization costs only a few million dollars
compared to more than $1 billion with interim storage. Implementing on-
site storage at all sites claiming a need for additional storage space
would require less than $60 million for capitalization and less than
$30 million per year for open operations.
So on-site storage could be maintained for 40 years at least before
equalling the construction costs of interim storage at Yucca Mountain
as estimated by the sponsors of this bill.
Mr. President, the marginal expense of on-site storage of spent fuel
is very
[[Page S7641]]
cheap when compared to the unnecessary and redundant transportation
costs and risks of a premature interim storage facility.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my colleague for a question.
Mr. BRYAN. The Senator may be aware of this. The Senator was making a
very telling point, when the Senator was pointing out to our colleagues
and to the listening audience in America, that 43 States are impacted
and the number of shipments. The Senator may not be aware of the fact
that as you look across this chart--here we have 50 million Americans
who are within a mile of either the rail or highway shipment routes, so
for people who are watching the floor of the Senate tonight who may
think it is just the two Senators from Nevada that would be impacted by
this, my question to the Senator is, this has a national impact, does
it not?
Mr. REID. It certainly does. As the Senator has pointed out, within a
mile of these routes are 50 million Americans.
Now, the Senator will recall--it happened within the past year, but I
just mention it briefly--within a mile of the freeway between Los
Angeles and Las Vegas a train wreck occurred. They closed that route.
That wreck did not involve the most dangerous substance known to man.
It had some cars loaded with chemicals, but it did not have nuclear
waste.
It is difficult to imagine how long that road would have been blocked
off had there been nuclear waste involved.
As I pointed out to the Senator and the rest of the people within the
sound of my voice, we do not have people trained to deal with nuclear
waste accidents. We do not have people trained to deal with nuclear
waste at all as indicated by the report that I just received today on
the ``Evaluation of the Emergency Response Capabilities Along Potential
Waste Routes.''
Mr. BRYAN. I think the Senator's point is that in New York, with over
7 million people; in Los Angeles with over 5.5 million; Chicago, with
2.7 million; Houston, TX, 1.6 million; Dallas, over a million; San
Antonio, nearly a million; Baltimore, 736,000; Jacksonville City,
635,000; Columbus, 632,000; Milwaukee, 628,000; the Nation's Capital,
606,000; El Paso, 515,000; Cleveland, 555,000; New Orleans, 496,000;
Nashville-Davidson, 488,000; Denver, 467,000 people; Fort Worth, TX,
447,000; Portland, OR, 437,000; Kansas City, MO, 435,000; Tucson,
405,000; St. Louis, 396,000; Charlotte, NC, 396,000, and Atlanta, site
of the Olympics, 394,000; Albuquerque, 384,000; Pittsburgh, 369,000;
Sacramento, 369,000; Minneapolis, 368,000; Fresno, 354,000; Omaha,
335,000; Toledo, 332,000; Buffalo, 328,000; Santa Ana, CA, 293,000;
Colorado Springs, 281,000; St. Paul, 272,000; Louisville, 269,000;
Anaheim, 266,000; Birmingham, 265,000; Arlington, TX, 261,000; our own
home city of Las Vegas, 258,000; Rochester, 231,000; Jersey City,
228,000; Riverside, CA, 226,000; Akron, 223,000; Baton Rouge, 219,000;
Stockton, 210,000; Richmond, 203,000; Shreveport, 198,000; Mobile,
196,000; Des Moines, 193,000; Lakeland, FL, 188,000; Hialeah, 187,000;
Montgomery, 186,000; Lubbock, 180,000; Glendale, CA, 180,000; Columbus
City, 178,000; Little Rock, 175,000; Bakersfield, 174,000; Fort Wayne,
IN, 173,000; Newport News, VA, 170,000; Worcester, MA, 169,000, and I
could go on and on, but I believe the Senator's point, if I understand
him--and this is my question--is that this is not just a fight that
just concerns the citizens of Nevada?
What the Senator is suggesting, for those who may be watching the
floor of the Senate tonight, is that it is not just two Nevada Senators
who are fighting for the health and safety of their States, but there
are people in these communities who do not think they have a stake in
this fight who ought to be sharing their concerns with our colleagues
and saying, look, we are affected, we are within a mile of these
transportation routes and thousands of shipments of nuclear waste may
be coming through our communities. I believe that is the Senator's
point that he is trying to make, if I understand the Senator correctly.
Mr. REID. In answer to my friend's question, I was not aware of these
numbers, but having had the Senator read them to me, I must say that,
if anything, these numbers are small because we can look at Las Vegas
as an example. If you look at Las Vegas, you will know that the greater
Las Vegas area is about 2.1 million people and most of those people
would be affected because it is down in that basin. If something
happened, it would spread like wildfire, and I would bet the same
applies to other cities. These are very conservative, very unrealistic
numbers, and it would probably involve more than 50 million people.
I should also say in response to my friend's question, let us look,
for example, at Chicago, 2,673,000 people. If I were a resident of the
State of Illinois and particularly a resident of the city of Chicago, I
would not want--they produce a lot of nuclear power in Illinois--I
personally would not want this nuclear waste taken from where it is in
Illinois.
I think it would be much safer, if I were a Chicago resident--I am
going there at the convention this summer--it would be much safer for
the people of Chicago if they put these materials in dry cask storage
containers or leave them in the cooling ponds because, if they do not,
they are going to have thousands and thousands of trainloads of nuclear
waste being shipped right through that main railhead, which is
Chicago--not only the Chicago nuclear waste, not only the Illinois
nuclear waste, but nuclear waste from all over the eastern and southern
parts of the United States. That is a main railhead just like Omaha,
NE, is.
So I appreciate very much the question of my colleague from Nevada.
It is very enlightening.
I ask unanimous consent that we have printed in the Record these
cities with these very conservative, modest numbers. We, of course, for
the Record will reduce this to letter size.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Major population centers affected by proposed nuclear transportation
routes
City and State Population
New York, NY..................................................7,321,564
Los Angeles, CA...............................................3,485,398
Chicago, IL...................................................2,783,726
Houston, TX...................................................1,630,672
Dallas, TX....................................................1,006,831
San Antonio, TX.................................................935,927
Baltimore, MD...................................................736,014
Jacksonville City, FL...........................................635,230
Columbus, OH....................................................632,258
Milwaukee, WI...................................................628,088
Washington, DC..................................................606,900
El Paso, TX.....................................................515,342
Cleveland, OH...................................................505,616
New Orleans, LA.................................................496,938
Nashville-Davidson, TN..........................................488,518
Denver, CO......................................................467,610
Fort Worth, TX..................................................447,619
Portland, OR....................................................437,398
Kansas City, MO.................................................433,141
Tucson, AZ......................................................405,390
St. Louis, MO...................................................396,685
Charlotte, NC...................................................396,003
Atlanta, GA.....................................................394,017
Albuquerque, NM.................................................384,736
Pittsburgh, PA..................................................389,870
Sacramento, CA..................................................369,365
Minneapolis, MN.................................................368,383
Fresno, CA......................................................354,202
Omaha, NE.......................................................335,795
Toledo, OH......................................................332,943
Buffalo, NY.....................................................328,123
Santa Ana, CA...................................................293,742
Colorado Springs, CO............................................281,140
St. Paul, MN....................................................272,235
Louisville, KY..................................................269,157
Anaheim, CA.....................................................266,406
Birmingham, AL..................................................265,852
Arlington, TX...................................................261,763
Las Vegas, NV...................................................758,295
Rochester, NY...................................................231,636
Jersey City, NJ.................................................228,537
Riverside, CA...................................................226,505
Akron, OH.......................................................223,019
Baton Rouge, LA.................................................219,531
Stockton, CA....................................................210,943
Richmond, VA....................................................203,056
Shreveport, LA..................................................198,528
Mobile, AL......................................................196,278
Des Moines, IA..................................................193,187
Lincoln, NE.....................................................191,973
Hialeah, FL.....................................................188,004
Montgomery, AL..................................................187,106
Lubbock, TX.....................................................186,281
Glendale, CA....................................................180,038
Columbus City, CA...............................................178,701
Little Rock, AR.................................................175,781
Bakersfield, CA.................................................174,820
Fort Wayne, IN..................................................173,072
Newport News, VA................................................170,043
Knoxville, TN...................................................165,121
Modesto, CA.....................................................164,730
San Bernardino, CA..............................................164,164
Syracuse, NY....................................................163,860
Salt Lake City, UT..............................................159,936
Huntsville, AL..................................................159,866
Amarillo, TX....................................................157,615
Springfield, MA.................................................156,983
Chattanooga, TN.................................................152,488
Kansas City, KS.................................................149,768
Metairie, LA....................................................149,428
Fort Lauderdale, FL.............................................149,377
Oxnard, CA......................................................142,192
[[Page S7642]]
Hartford, CT....................................................139,739
Reno, NV........................................................133,850
Hampton, VA.....................................................133,793
Ontanio, CA.....................................................133,179
Pomona, CA......................................................131,723
Lansing, MI.....................................................127,321
East Los Angeles, CA............................................126,379
Evansville, IN..................................................126,272
Tallahassee, FL.................................................124,773
Paradise, NV....................................................124,682
Hollywood, FL...................................................121,697
Topeka, KS......................................................119,883
Gary, IN........................................................116,646
Beaumont, TX....................................................114,323
Fullerton, CA...................................................114,144
Santa Rosa, CA..................................................113,313
Eugene, OR......................................................112,669
Independence, MO................................................112,301
Overland Park, KS...............................................111,790
Alexandria, VA..................................................111,183
Orange, CA......................................................110,658
Santa Clarita, CA...............................................110,642
Irvine, CA......................................................110,330
Cedar Rapids, IA................................................108,751
Erie, PA........................................................108,718
Salem, OR.......................................................107,786
Citrus Heights, CA..............................................107,439
Abilene, TX.....................................................106,665
Macon, GA.......................................................106,640
South Bend, IN..................................................105,536
Springfield, IL.................................................105,227
Thousand Oaks, CA...............................................104,352
Waco, TX........................................................103,590
Lowell, MA......................................................103,439
Mesquite, TX....................................................101,484
Simi Valley, CA.................................................100,217
Mr. BRYAN. A further question of the Senator, if the Senator will
yield.
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question from my friend.
Mr. BRYAN. I think the Senator's point was that the population
numbers that I read of part of those cities represents the corporate
city limits, and I believe the Senator's point, if I understood him
correctly, is that each of these communities are part of a metropolitan
area. As the Senator pointed out, in our hometown of Las Vegas, there
are roughly a million people in the metropolitan area who would be
directly and adversely impacted by a rail or highway accident. Yet, Las
Vegas is listed for purposes of population as 258,000. I believe, if I
understood the Senator's point, in addition to the population indicated
here, there are suburban communities that would be populated as well,
perhaps even greater.
Mr. REID. The Senator's question is appropriate, pertinent, and in
fact very enlightening. The city of Las Vegas is part of a metropolitan
area, and it is just like most areas in the United States. You have a
city surrounded by suburbs, and that is, in effect, what we have in Las
Vegas. Of course, the numbers that were brought forth by my colleague
from Nevada are staggering even if you do not take into consideration
the fact that these are only the incorporated areas.
If you elaborate on that and indicate that the population of nearly
every place we talked about is much greater than almost every place we
talked about on the chart, it involves more than 50 million people. The
example we talked about, with Chicago, is certainly in point. Chicago
would not only be responsible for, in effect, gathering up its nuclear
waste and transporting it, but they would be responsible also, being
the major railhead that it is, for other people's nuclear waste. The
people of Illinois should tell the nuclear power industry, ``Don't do
us any favors. Leave it here. You will not only save the ratepayers and
taxpayers huge amounts of money, but it will be safer to leave it where
it is either in the cooling ponds or in the dry cask storage
containers.''
There is simply no need, certainly no compelling need, to rush to a
centralized interim storage before a permanent repository site has been
designated.
I say again, the statement I just made is not a statement developed
by the Governor of the State of Nevada or the Nevada State Legislature
or the Chamber of Commerce of Las Vegas. In accordance with its
charter, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board just this year
reported to the Congress that it ``found no compelling safety or
technical reason to accelerate the centralization of spent nuclear
fuel.'' In effect what they are saying is give the process an
opportunity to work.
I said before and I will say again, the President has stated he will
veto this bill since it would designate interim storage at a specific
site before the viability of a permanent repository has been
determined. Both the Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency have taken strong positions in opposition to this
bill.
Here we are at 6 o'clock at night. It is Wednesday. At my home in the
suburbs here it is garbage night, which I will miss--taking the garbage
out. We should be debating welfare reform or the 12 appropriations
bills. We should be talking about matters that need to be addressed. We
should not be wasting time on a bill the President has said he is going
to veto. The Secretary of the Department of Energy said she does not
like it. The director of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Director of that has stated she is opposed to it.
As the administration points out, personally through the President of
the United States and through its agency heads and Cabinet-level
officers, they have a plan which is making significant progress and
provides appropriate protection to the environment of our citizens. The
President of the United States, the first time I ever met the man--
Senator Bryan who was Governor then, was with him and knew him, I did
not know the man--he was running for President 4 years or so ago. I met
him at National Airport. Four years ago one of the issues we talked
about--we only talked about two or three issues. We had a 40-minute
meeting with him. He was very busy, but he gave us 40 minutes--was
nuclear waste. As we told him at the time it is a very important issue
for the State of Nevada. We told him then the scientific community had
almost perfected a dry cask storage container, and that we wanted him
to take a look at that, as far as storage goes. He told us at the time:
We have nuclear waste in the State of Arkansas. I understand what you
are trying to do. I think it is a good idea. And he has never wavered
from that. This is an issue he understands. This is not something he
suddenly decided that he wanted to do because Nevada was important in a
Presidential election. The President of the United States has been with
us from the first time I met him. He has been with us this whole time.
The President of the United States has not said I am opposed to
permanent storage in Nevada. He has not said that. But what he has
said, unequivocally, without hesitation, to anyone who will listen, is
it is unfair what you are trying to do to Nevada with bills like S.
1936. Do not do it. Because if you do, I will veto it. And he should.
But we are wasting our time here at 6 o'clock at night when we should
be doing important amendments on the defense appropriations bill. I am
a member of the Appropriations Committee.
My colleagues have to understand that we are protecting our rights,
the rights of the people of the State of Nevada and the rights of the
people of this country. It is wrong what is being done. It is being
driven by big business, and it is wrong. If there were ever a time that
the rules of the U.S. Senate become important, to me it is when you are
trying to protect the interests of the people of the State of Nevada. I
am doing no more than what the Presiding Officer of this body would do.
I am doing no more than what any Senator from these United States would
do.
It would be as if there was legislation offered in the State of
Maryland to do away with Chesapeake Bay. It would be like telling the
States that surround the Great Lakes: We are going to take one of the
lakes away from you. Would you fight? Sure you would fight. You would
use all the rules at your disposal, and we are going to do that.
I expect the two Senators from Idaho, if they were suddenly told that
we were going to start hauling thousands of tons of garbage into their
State--I would think they should have some rights, minimal rights, the
rights equal to other States in this Nation, that we should not allow
garbage to be dumped in Idaho. That is what we are doing here to
Nevada.
We are saying: In Nevada, you are not only going to get permanent
repository, you are going to get a temporary repository and the
temporary repository is worse than the permanent because we are setting
the safety standards so low, and the exposure levels so high.
The President stated he will veto the bill. He is doing the right
thing. Technical review boards, commissioned by the Government, have
consistently found there is no immediate or anticipated risk with
continuing dry cask
[[Page S7643]]
storage for several decades. What I am saying is there is no reason for
this legislation. The administration acknowledges that. The technical
review bodies have also found the environmental and safety standards
should be retained or strengthened, rather than weakened as this bill
calls for.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield for a question from my friend.
Mr. BRYAN. The Senator just made the point there is really no need
for this legislation. I call to the attention of the Senator, and I ask
him if he recalls that in the Congressional Record on July 28, 1980, in
the context of a debate on the away-from-reactor proposal, a statement
was made on the floor by one of our colleagues that this bill--
referring to this away-from-reactor storage, which is a progenitor, if
you will, of this temporary storage facility that we are dealing with
in our discussion this evening--it was said, the date again, July 28,
1980:
This bill deals comprehensively with the problem of
civilian nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem, Mr.
President, for this Nation. It is urgent first because we are
running out of reactor space at reactors for the storage of
the fuel and if we do not build what we call away-from-
reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin shutting
down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as soon as
1983.
Mr. REID. Could I ask my friend to repeat the date of that
Congressional Record?
Mr. BRYAN. Responding to my colleague, this is kind of a deja vu.
This is in the Congressional Record, on July 28, 1980. That is almost
16 years ago, in which, on the floor of the Senate it was asserted
that, if this particular legislation, this away-from-reactor storage
was not obtained, that by 1983--that is 13 years ago--that civilian
nuclear reactors in this country would shut down.
I do not know if my colleague from Nevada is aware of this but, upon
my propounding the question to him--was he aware that among those
utilities that were claiming they would be shut down was Alabama Power
Co., the J. Farly Reactor, Arkansas Power & Light Co., Arkansas Nuclear
1 and 2, Boston Edison Co., Pilgrim 1, Carolina Power & Light Co.,
Brunswick 1, Brunswick 2, Robinson 2, Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.,
Zimmer No. 1, Commonwealth Edison Co., La Salle 1 and 2, Consumers'
Dairy Co., Palisades, Duke Power Co., Maguire No. 1, Maguire No. 2,
Okonee No. 1, Okonee 2 and 3; Florida Power & Light, St. Lucy 1, St.
Lucy 2, Turkey Point 3, Turkey Point 4, General Public Utilities,
Oyster Creek, Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., Millstone 1, Millstone 2,
Northern States Power Co., Monticello, Omaha Power District, Fort
Calhoun, Power Authority of the State of New York, J.A. Fitzpatric,
Indian Point No. 3, Philadelphia Electric Co., Peach Bottom 2 and 3,
Rochester Gas and Electric, R.E. Genna facility, Virginia Electric &
Power Co., North Anna No. 1, North Anna No. 2, Surrey 1, Surrey 2, and
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co., Vermont Yankee.
I ask unanimous consent the material from the Congressional Record of
1980 be printed in today's Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Excerpt From the Congressional Record, July 28, 1980
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
Mr. President, this bill deals comprehensively with the
problem of civilian nuclear waste. It is an urgent problem.
Mr. President, for this Nation. It is urgent, first, because
we are running out of reactor space at reactors for the
storage of the fuel, and if we do not build what we call
away-from-reactor storage and begin that soon, we could begin
shutting down civilian nuclear reactors in this country as
soon as 1983, those predictions coming from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.
It is essential that we set a predictable policy for
utilities to operate on so that they know if they begin
either to run a reactor, or if they are making a decision now
as to whether to build one, that they have some policy to
which they can refer that is predictable and certain for the
United States.
Mr. BRYAN. My question is that we were told in 1980 that if that
away-from-reactor legislation that was on the floor being debated on
July 28 was not enacted, that these utilities would have to close by
1983.
My question to the Senator is, Is he aware of any of these facilities
ever closing as a result of the lack of storage, as was suggested to
us, in the crisis-ridden prediction?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend in response to the question, I had
forgotten about this. I appreciate very much the Senator bringing it to
my attention.
The Senator knows during the past 10 years, we have heard in this
body, and other places, dire pleas for emergency help; that you have to
do something tomorrow. These are the perennial crying-wolf stories.
That is why the technical review boards have said, ``Cool it.'' I
guess they are saying leave it in the coolers, leave it in the cooling
ponds. There is no reason to rush into this. The technical review
boards commissioned by the Government consistently found there is no
immediate reason for continuing with these continual cries for help.
They are saying, slow down. There is no need or excuse for this bill.
It threatens the health and safety of all Americans and is a reckless
and unnecessary expense.
Mr. President, the sponsors of this bill say one thing, and what I
say to them is, if you really think there is a need for interim storage
in the near term, then let's put this bill in committee and have a good
hearing and try to make a determination why we are doing this. There is
no reason for it. It is not fair, and certainly if you are going to do
this on a fair basis to find the best site, we should remove from this
legislation the site specificity. We must restore the environmental and
safety provisions of the current law. We must observe the same rights
of Nevada residents to health and prosperity as the citizens of any
other State, and we must be assured that a search for a permanent
solution is not sidetracked by short-term business or political agenda.
We have talked several times today about the transportation risks,
and they are significant. One of the greatest risks of this bill is
that it will force vast amounts of dangerous nuclear waste to be
transported cross country. But it is unnecessary, and it is certainly
premature. If this is to be done, should we not wait until the
permanent repository is completed?
In the past, we have had roughly 100 shipments per year of nuclear
waste, and most of these shipments were relatively short hauls in the
East between nuclear power plants and reprocessing facilities. This
bill will increase the shipment rate into thousands and thousands of
shipments per year and send them on cross-country journeys through
routes in our most populated cities in America. The pressure to start
shipments as soon as possible and to move as much as possible can only
increase the risk of an accident. Safety last rather than safety first
is the hallmark of this bill.
Mr. President, we have here a map that shows the routes the nuclear
waste will travel. I ask those who are looking at this map, are any of
these routes in your backyard? Are any of these routes in cities where
your family lives or your kid is going to college? If it is, you should
be concerned.
Most of the waste, of course, is produced in the Eastern part of the
United States. Is it not interesting that we are going to ship the
waste 3,000 miles, in some instances, for no reason? If you live in the
heartland of America, ask, why should all the Eastern nuclear waste be
shipped through your State, perhaps your town, when we do not yet know
where the final repository will be?
If you live in Wyoming, Utah, or Colorado, you should note that you
are on the main line for these shipments. S. 1936 mandates shipment of
nuclear waste crosscountry by 1999, regardless of technical problems or
risks involved.
There is no need for these shipments at this time. There may never be
a need for these shipments. If and when they are needed, we should take
our time to do it right and not force this issue as it is being done
today.
The industry and the sponsors of this bill would like you to believe
that this transportation is risk free. Well, it is not. There have been
truck and train accidents involving nuclear waste, and there will
continue to be accidents involving nuclear waste and other hazardous
substances.
I am reminded of a friend of mine who I went to high school with. He
was a police officer in a town in east-central Nevada, a town called
Ely,
[[Page S7644]]
E-l-y. Kennecott had a big mine there at one time. He was, as I
indicated, a police officer, and he told me:
Harry, one of the things that I do that gives me as much
concern as anything else is we get notices every day of
hazardous substances that are being driven through our town.
He said:
It would be better if they didn't even tell us about it,
because if something happened with one of those vehicles with
the hazardous substance in it, there is nothing we can do
about it anyway. We have no equipment. None of our personnel,
police or fire, are trained to handle these hazardous
substances. Our equipment is certainly inadequate.
Multiply this thousands and thousands of times all over America. We
are going to ship nuclear waste on trucks and trains. There will be
accidents. There have been accidents. We have already had seven nuclear
waste accidents. They have not been significantly harmful, but there
have been accidents.
The industry and the sponsors of this bill, as I have indicated,
would have you believe, would like you to believe that this
transportation is risk free. Well, it is not. There have been truck and
train accidents involving nuclear waste, and there will continue to be
accidents involving nuclear waste. There will be many more accidents
because there will be many more shipments.
The industry and the sponsors of this bill will tell you that the
probability of an accident resulting in a large radioactive release is
very small; that, in fact, we have never had a significant release.
Well, probabilities have inevitable results, that if you push them long
and hard enough, the adverse outcome will occur.
The day before Chernobyl, the probability of such an accident was
very, very low. But the day after the accident, the consequences were
enormous, and the probabilities of other such accidents increased
significantly.
Mr. President, there are a number of us who have been concerned about
the safety and reliability of our nuclear arsenal. In working on these
issues, I came to realize that there have been numerous accidents
involving nuclear weapons. We have been so fortunate. We have been so
lucky that there has not been death and destruction as a result of
those accidents. In North Dakota, a B-52 caught fire loaded with
nuclear weapons. The wind usually blew in one direction, but during the
course of this fire on the airplane, it blew in the other direction
and, as a result of that, there was no danger as a result of nuclear
weaponry.
We know that there has been an accident in Canada of an airplane with
nuclear weapons on it. Again, it was found and everything worked out
fine. But these accidents will happen. The day before Chernobyl, the
probability of such an accident was very low. But the accident
happened. And the consequences were enormous. The same potential exists
here.
Mr. President, again, I would like to draw your attention to the
chart that shows the number of trucks and trains that will be used to
transport this very high-level nuclear waste. I, of course, highlighted
the States with the biggest risks. It is in bold print: Illinois,
Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. There are others that are close to
that. But I just highlighted those.
It is significant, because we are talking about over 12,000 shipments
through Illinois alone; over 11,000 shipments through Nebraska and
Wyoming; over 14,000 through Utah; over 15,000 for Nevada. These are
some of the States.
As I have indicated, we have already had seven nuclear waste
transportation accidents. The average has been 1 accident for every 300
shipments of nuclear waste. Well, we do not know for sure how many new
trains and trucks will be required because of S. 1936. But we know it
will be magnified significantly. So we can expect at least 150 or 200
accidents if this S. 1936 is implemented.
Where will the accidents take place? Omaha? Chicago? New York?
Atlanta? I do not know. No one knows, just like no one knew that this
inferno would occur at Chernobyl. We should not be ready to take that
risk, because it is unnecessary. Why would we want to take the risk? To
help the nuclear industry reduce its costs and risk exposure? It is a
tautology that accidents are unpredictable; but that an accident will
happen is certain.
Based on studies done for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at least
one serious radioactive accident with leakage and contamination will
happen sometime, somewhere along the transportation route. That is a
very modest estimate. We cannot know where it will happen before it
happens. We cannot know when it will happen before it happens.
So, Mr. President, today we could not respond effectively or rapidly
to accident sites because we have not taken the time, the trouble or
gone to the expense to equip and train emergency responders along the
routes that the waste will take. We have not made the investments
necessary to assure capable response to remote, inaccessible areas
where the accidents could happen.
Mr. President, we simply could not respond. But how long would it
take to get trained and equipped emergency crews to a railway accident
site somewhere in the mountains, like the Rocky Mountains I talked
about earlier, like the Sierra Nevada Mountains between California and
Nevada? What about the Wasatch Range in Utah? What about the mountains
of Arizona? It makes a big difference how well and how rapidly we can
respond. Let me give some illustrations.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that transportation
containers survive a 30-minute exposure to a fire environment of 1,475
degrees Fahrenheit temperature. Sounds very strong and protective--30-
minute exposure to a fire environment of 1,475 degrees.
Yet diesel fuel fire temperatures can exceed 3,200 degrees and their
average temperatures are about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. So a diesel
fuel fire--and most trucks use diesel fuel, most trains use diesel
fuel--the average temperature of a diesel fuel fire is 1,800 degrees,
325 degrees higher than what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires
these containers to survive. And these are exposed for only 30 minutes.
I indicated earlier today we all read in the newspaper about a fire
that occurred on a train this year that lasted 4 days, not 30 minutes,
but 4 days. One recent train wreck, as I have indicated, burned with
its hazardous chemical cargo for 4 days. The firefighters could not
even get access to the wreck for 4 days. It was so hot, so caustic that
they could not get close to it for 4 days.
Transportation canisters are meant to contain the waste material in
fires or collisions. The nuclear regulatory certification requirements
for thermal survivability are no guarantee against fire-disbursed
radioactive debris. The collision survival criteria appear just as
inadequate.
We have talked about the fire exposure. We know that for a diesel
fire--these are all diesel trucks here--the average temperature of a
fire in a diesel vehicle is 325 degrees higher than what the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has set.
That is for fire. What about collisions? The collision survival
criteria appear just as inadequate. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
requires that a canister survive a 30-mile-per-hour collision. I was
driving this weekend in Las Vegas, from Boulder City to Las Vegas, on
an expressway. I was going 75 miles an hour, and I was passed by two
heavily loaded trucks, big semis. I was going 75. They were going 80. I
say to my friend from Nevada--he knows the area--as you are coming down
Henderson, going toward the Henderson plants, that downhill grade
there, trucks were going 80 miles an hour. They passed me. I remember
it because it was frightening.
The NRC has set these canisters to survive a collision at 30 miles
per hour. I do not know of many trucks that go 30 miles an hour. The
collisions are going to take place at much higher speeds than that most
of the time.
The NRC also requires that the 30-mile-per-hour collision be with a
rigid flat surface. Most collisions are not going to be with a rigid
flat surface. It is going to be with a pile of rocks alongside the
road, going to be hitting another truck, another car. So that is why it
is beyond the ability to comprehend why you would want to move these
poisonous, spent fuel rods from where they are now located so that they
are exposed potentially to fire or potentially to collisions.
My question I ask to the world is, Would it not be much safer to
leave them on-site in these dry cask storage containers than to take
the uncertain
[[Page S7645]]
route in a train or truck, knowing that there is going to be an
accident, only wondering when and where it will occur? Well, I ask the
world, but the world must respond that the only logical thing to do is
to leave it where it is--leave it where it is. By leaving it where it
is, you avoid totally the danger of an accident. You also avoid not
only the fire but the collision. I say ``also,'' Mr. President.
One of the things I have not talked about that we should be doing
here, we should be clearing judges. We have 23 judges that should be
cleared. We have not cleared a single one of them. The last year that
we were in power, the Democrats were in power, we cleared 60-some-odd
judges. We have not cleared a single judge this year. There are 23 that
need to be cleared.
While we are talking about the court, I see the Presiding Officer
here, one of the things we need to get done is to get a study of the
circuits so we can make determinations on how we should realign the
circuits. Anyone that has practiced law in the Federal court system
knows we probably need to do some realigning of the Federal appeals
court. We should get that done. I hope we can get it done right away so
that the questions that have been raised by the Senator from Montana,
the junior Senator from Montana and others, about some of the appellate
courts, we can get those resolved. That is one thing we can do.
There is no good reason that we cannot leave the nuclear waste where
it is to avoid collisions, to avoid fires.
Certainly, what we should be doing is talking about welfare reform. I
see walking off the floor the junior Senator from Louisiana who has
spent weeks of his time, weeks of his time working on welfare reform.
As a result of the work that he and Senator Mikulski did, we came up
with a proposal here that we passed by over 80 votes. It went to
conference, fell apart, was vetoed. I hope we would use his good work
in building another welfare reform bill.
Many Senators are concerned about judges, whether there should be
approval of judges. I hope we can do that, rather than wasting our time
on a bill the President has said he will veto.
I repeat, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said if there is a
fire, one of these canisters must withstand temperatures of 1475
degrees; diesel, when it burns, is 1800 degrees. We know, also, that
collisions are survivable under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
standards only at 30 miles an hour. That is inadequate. We do not need
to expose these canisters to collisions or to fire. All we need to do
is put dry cask storage containers on site, and as a result of doing
that, we could avoid all the concerns that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has.
As we know, most accidents will exceed the criteria set by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on highway and rail accidents. The NRC
certification requirement for spent-fuel transportation containers are
not insurance against the consequences of a remote inaccessible
accident, but the consequence of an accident will not observe the
boundaries of the accident. Just because the accident might be remote
is no basis for comfort. Radioactive waste will burn and disperse many
tens of miles that will contaminate far distant territory.
So, along the transportation routes, within a mile, include at least
50 million residents being at risk. Are we going to warn this at-risk
population to stay tuned to some emergency frequency just in case
something unexpected happens? If we do that, what are we going to tell
them to do if an accident does happen?
Mr. President, as my colleague pointed out, and the chart has been
printed in the Record, at least 50 million people are within a mile of
the routes that we have pointed out time and time again today, the
train travels and the truck travels. Are we going to warn this at-risk
population to stay tuned to some emergency frequency just in case
something unexpected happens? If we do that, what are we going to tell
them to do if an accident does happen? Who will help? We do not have
people trained. When will they get help? We do not know. Who will be
liable?
The term Mobile Chernobyl has been coined for this legislation. That
is what it is. ``Mobile Chernobyl'' has been coined for S. 1936. A
trainload of waste may not contain the potential for disaster that
Chernobyl supplied, but the result will be little different for those
affected by this inevitable accident.
Mr. President, I submit that we are not prepared to implement the
transportation of this hazardous material--not today and not tomorrow.
The risk is real, and we are responsible for assuring readiness and
preparation to reduce it to minimal levels for both probability and
consequence. It does not make sense to double that risk by premature
and unnecessary transportation to an interim storage site that has not
been determined to be the final disposition site.
Mr. President, one thing we need to talk about is terrorism,
vandalism, and protests generally. There are unforeseeable accidents,
but accidents are only one kind of a problem that we may be dealing
with. Much has been spoken of America's vulnerability to both domestic
and foreign terrorist attacks.
It saddens me, Mr. President, to agree that some of America's enemies
today are not people from outside its borders but American citizens.
Misguided they may be, enemies they certainly are. We know from this
past weekend in Arizona, a sister State to Nevada, a large group of
terrorists were arrested. They were luckily infiltrated by some
patriotic person. There were films of explosions that they set,
conversations of how they would kill anyone that turned against them.
They are out there.
There are vipers all over, Mr. President. There are also known
foreign enemies of America, and the values that America stands for they
do not like. There are known foreign enemies of America in our open
society, which is our national heritage and the essence of America. We
cannot deny our enemies many of the same freedoms we enjoy ourselves.
There are, as well, many foreign interests, some clandestine, that
will want to promote and publicize their existence and goals through
outrageous acts of blatant terrorism and destruction. We know that they
occur not only in Saudi Arabia but in Oklahoma City, New York City, and
even in the city of Reno, NV, where we had, recently, an act of
terrorism that failed. They tried to blow up the Internal Revenue
building. The bomb was a dud.
Terrorists have had, on a smaller scale, success in Nevada, blowing
the roof off of a BLM building. They twice attacked a forest ranger,
once blowing up the office, another time blowing up a device in his
driveway at his home.
There are evil people in America, Mr. President. I do not say that
with pride, but it is a fact. What better stage could be set for these
enemies than a trainload or a truckload of the most hazardous substance
known to man, clearly and predictably moving through our free and open
society.
We face a fraction of this kind of risk every day in our cities, at
our airports, and around our centers of local, State and Federal
governments. But the opportunity to inflict widespread contamination,
terror, and horror, to engender real health risks to millions of
Americans, to encumber our treasury with hundreds of millions of
dollars in cleanup costs, to further reduce the confidence of all
Americans in our treasured freedoms will be irresistible to our
enemies.
Why would we want to transport nuclear waste when we do not have to?
I go back to what has been stated time and time again, Mr. President,
by the people that we have assigned to determine what should be done
with nuclear waste--that is, the technical review board, which has said
consistently that there is no immediate or anticipated risk in
continuing using either cooling ponds or dry cask storage containers
on-site. So there is no need to do that.
Mr. President, we have had a number of problems in America in the
last few years that we are not proud of in dealing with terrorists. We
look for ways to avoid terrorist activity. Some of it is somewhat
painful, like closing off Pennsylvania Avenue and closing off the ways
into the Capitol Building. I consented to that, even though I did not
have a lot of control over it.
When I was chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Committee, Senator Ford, and others who serve on the Rules Committee,
indicated that was the right thing to do. So
[[Page S7646]]
I went out of my way to make sure that the Capitol Police had enough
money to do the things that it would require because of these terrorist
activities in our Nation's Capital. Why do we not avoid those
activities even more? We can do that, Mr. President. We can do it by
simply not hauling nuclear waste. Just do what the technical review
board said we should do and leave it on-site. We avoid all these
problems.
We must prepare for such realities as terrorism, vandalism, and
protests. We must prepare for such realities that accompany the massive
transportation campaign that will be required to consolidate nuclear
waste at a repository site. They do not want to be bothered by reality.
They ask that we not confuse them with facts. The old saying is that
``haste makes waste.''
That takes on a whole new dimension in the context of S. 1936,
because the waste that we are talking about is the most poisonous
substance known to man. Mr. President, we also, of course, must be
concerned about vandalism, such as graffiti sprayed on walls, and
windows knocked out of buildings, and buildings that are completely
destroyed for no good reason. ``Vandalism'' is a word that came as a
result of the invasion of the Vandals. They came and destroyed for no
good reason. They destroyed just to be destroying.
Protests. In Nevada, it has become very standard that we have people
who come there to protest. They come there to protest at the Nevada
Test Site. Some of them protest because they think there are aliens out
there, secret storage facilities for aliens from outer space. We have
people that come there and protest because they believe at the test
site they are doing things dealing with atomic devices, which they
should not be doing. They lay down in the streets. They stop people
from coming to and going from work. They are going to do the same with
transporting nuclear waste. There is no reason that we should give
these people the opportunity to cause mischief. I am not saying that
the people who believe that there are alien test sites are mischievous.
I am sure they believe they are there. I am sure they are people of
good will, who picket the test site and do those kinds of things.
But I say, why should we allow terrorism activity to take place? Why
should we allow the opportunity for vandals at these nuclear storage
facilities transportation when it is unnecessary? Why would we want to
do that? Why do we need the protests? Why do we not simply leave the
spent fuel on-site, where the technical review board said it should be
left until we get a permanent repository or determine there cannot be
one, which is not very likely.
We have talked about the exposure risks a little bit. But S. 1936
will certainly gut our environmental laws and expose Americans to
unreasonable risks. S. 1936 removes the Environmental Protection
Agency's authority to set environmental standards. This runs directly
counter to the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendations, which were asked for by Congress. S. 1936 mandates a
radiation exposure safety limit that is inconsistent.
Mr. President, I will yield to the two leaders, who are on the floor.
I ask that until some agreement is reached, I not lose my opportunity
to maintain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
____________________