[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2248-S2249]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am dismayed to hear that there are 
continuing efforts to process through this Congress an ill-conceived 
piece of legislation that would establish a temporary nuclear waste 
dump in my State at the Nevada test site. I believe those efforts will 
be defeated, and I believe that the policy indications overwhelmingly 
indicate that is an ill-conceived piece of legislation.
  Most of the debate that has occurred on this floor in this session 
and the previous session has been by my colleague Senator Reid and I in 
discussing this with other Members of this body, and the issue has 
frequently been framed that it is Nevada versus the rest of the 
country.
  I want to enlighten my colleagues this morning on some developments 
that I think are most interesting. The voices of the average citizen in 
America have not been heard in this debate. In fact, a recent poll 
commissioned by the University of Maryland indicates that slightly more 
than 35 percent of Americans, when questioned about this ill-conceived 
proposal, know anything about it at all. So my colleagues have not 
heard from the public.
  The nuclear energy industry and its advocates and supporters have 
been a massive presence on Capitol Hill. Their voices have been heard. 
Their power and their influence through the Halls of Congress have been 
immense. I freely acknowledge that they are a frightening and 
impressive adversary in terms of the resources that they bring to 
bear. But again, about 35 percent of the American people are even aware 
of this proposal at all.

[[Page S2249]]

  Under the commission survey by the University of Maryland, when 
Americans are told about this proposal, and they are asked about this 
concept of transporting high-level nuclear waste throughout the 
country, 66 percent express opposition. And of the 66 percent who 
expressed opposition, 75 percent were strongly opposed.
  I hope, as this debate is likely to resume during the present 
Congress, that my colleagues will hear the voice of their constituents. 
They know that this is bad policy, they know it is unsafe, and they 
know that it is unnecessary once the facts are freely laid out for 
them.
  Mr. President, you will recall, during the course of the debate we 
made the point here that in order to transport high-level nuclear waste 
to the so-called temporary site at the Nevada test site, it must pass 
through 43 States and that 50 million Americans live within a mile or 
less of the major rail and highway corridors in America. The red lines 
depicted on this map of the United States indicate the highway 
corridors. The blue lines indicate the rail corridors.
  One does not have to be a student of geography to understand that 
these highway and rail corridor systems make their way through the 
major metropolitan centers of our country. Indeed, they are arteries of 
commerce that connect the major cities of our country. So in 
transporting high-level nuclear waste, that waste is going to go 
through the major metropolitan areas of our country. When citizens in 
those communities are made aware of this peril, they react without 
reference to partisanship but to strongly express their opposition.
  We have communities such as St. Louis, Denver, Los Angeles, Santa 
Barbara, Philadelphia, and other communities that have passed 
ordinances expressing their strong opposition. What brings me to the 
floor this morning is that just earlier this week in Flagstaff, AZ, its 
city council passed a resolution expressing its strong opposition to 
this proposal.
  It is unnecessary. It is opposed by the scientific community. It is 
opposed by the Department of Energy. It is opposed by sensible 
Americans who have looked at the issue because it is unnecessary. 
Transporting 70,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste across the country 
to a temporary facility makes no public policy sense at all. As we have 
pointed out time and time again on the floor, this is not a new 
proposal. The origin of this proposal can be traced to one group and 
one group only, and that is the nuclear utility industry. Two decades 
ago they came before the Congress and urged the Congress to pass what 
was then referred to as an away-from-reactor program to remove the 
nuclear waste from the reactor sites and place it in some other 
facility off-location, off-reactor, as it was referred to. But Congress 
wisely rejected that proposal two decades ago.
  I might say that the arguments then, as now, are that catastrophe 
will occur in America if this is not transported to some temporary 
location away from reactor sites. In the 1980s, it was asserted that we 
would have a nuclear brownout, that these utilities would simply be 
unable to function because they did not have onsite storage if these 
shipments were not made. It is now two decades later. No nuclear 
utility in America has closed as a result of the absence of storage 
capacity onsite. Many have closed because they are unsafe. Others have 
closed because, from an economic point of view, to retrofit older 
reactors to bring them up to the safety standards that are required is 
simply uneconomical.
  Many of my colleagues find it difficult to accept, but the nuclear 
industry is an energy dinosaur in America. No new reactors have been 
ordered or built in America in two decades. I think it is highly 
unlikely, in light of increased public knowledge and understanding of 
what is involved in siting a reactor in a community, that we will ever 
again have a new reactor built in America.
  So when the public is presented with the facts--namely, are you aware 
that the Congress is considering in this session of the Congress a 
proposal to transport nuclear waste through 40 States, 50 million 
Americans within a mile or less; and what do you think of that 
proposal?--the overwhelming reaction, two-thirds, expressed strong 
opposition.
  My point, Mr. President, in bringing this to the floor today is that 
I hope my colleagues will listen to their constituents and hear from 
them. We have heard the arguments of the nuclear utility industry. But 
the American public, by and large, because they did not know about this 
proposal, we have not heard their voices. I can tell you, having been 
to St. Louis and Denver, when you talk with citizens in those 
communities, and make them aware of what is involved here, they 
understand the risk and they express strong opposition to this 
proposal.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________