[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.

                          ____________________