[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1269-E1270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR WASTE HAS IMPRESSIVE SAFETY RECORD

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 16, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the July 15, 2002, Omaha World-Herald. The 
editorial offers insightful comments on the issue of transporting 
nuclear waste and highlights the impressive safety record of shipments 
which have been made over the years. For instance, 3,000 shipments of 
high-level nuclear waste have been safely completed over the past three 
decades. The containers for the waste have been subjected to numerous 
tests to ensure their strength and durability even in the most extreme 
circumstances.
  Unfortunately, many opponents of the Yucca Mountain site have tried 
to use emotional scare tactics about the transportation of nuclear 
waste in hopes of derailing the entire project. However, as the 
editorial makes clear, central depository would greatly enhance safety.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 15, 2002]

                            How Safe Is It?

       Now that the Senate has voted to allow the construction of 
     a national high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca 
     Mountain, Department of Energy officials will have to 
     confront a key issue: Transportation.
       Officials expect up to 77,000 tons of dangerous radioactive 
     material such as spent nuclear plant fuel rods to be 
     transported to the remote Nevada desert for indefinite 
     storage. That waste will come from all 39 states, 
     encompassing 131 sites, that currently store the material in 
     mostly above-ground facilities. The sites include not only 
     nuclear power plants but also military weapons facilities and 
     research institutions.
       The waste will travel by truck and rail. It will have to 
     pass through some of the nation's most populous areas. Some 
     will come through the Midlands, on its Interstate highways 
     and its many rail lines. The government has projected that as 
     many as 100 truck or rail accidents might occur over the 25-
     year life of the project.
       The question of safety is key.
       Opponents of the project tried to attack transport of the 
     waste before the Senate decision because methods and routes 
     had not yet been specified. But they were premature. It's 
     only now, as DOE applies for a license for the facility from 
     the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that such issues can be 
     addressed.
       Many critics of Yucca Mountain, by the way, aren't 
     necessarily being open about their motives. Some may honestly 
     believe approval of the site is potentially dangerous. 
     Others, however, are simply anti-nuclear. They realize that 
     without a disposal site, nuclear power in this country will 
     likely die--``choking on its own waste,'' as one senator put 
     it.
       When critics raise their objections, they will have to 
     overcome this fact; In the past

[[Page E1270]]

     30 years, about 3,000 shipments of high-level waste have 
     traveled around the United States safely. Not without 
     accidents--trucks and trains are always vulnerable to 
     accidents--but without any radiation leaks.
       The Nuclear Energy Institute says that the waste transport 
     containers used thus far, with their multiple layers of lead 
     and other shielding, are built to withstand severe accidents. 
     They have been tested: hit by a locomotive traveling at 60 
     miles per hour, driven into a concrete wall at 80 miles an 
     hour, burned, submerged. They have withstood the worst flung 
     at them without failure, whether in testing or in actual 
     transportation-accident situations.
       The presence of so many above-ground storage facilities for 
     nuclear waste, in so many locations, near so many people--160 
     million by one estimate--amounts to an open invitation to 
     accidents or terrorism. The chilling security uncertainties 
     alone should predispose Americans toward a central, safe 
     waste site.
       Getting the waste materials there is a technical problem, 
     not a reason to kill the construction of Yucca Mountain. If 
     current methods of transportation aren't adequate--and such 
     assertions are still far from proved--then federal officials 
     and nuclear plant operators should find other ways to protect 
     the shipments.
       A single national repository is the only reasonable way to 
     go. If Yucca Mountain is as desirable a site as its 
     supporters say, then questions about transportation of the 
     waste should not hold it back.

     

                          ____________________