Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN. We have heard considerable debate in the Chamber here about the horrendous liability that may exist out there because everyone concedes that the Department would not be able to physically accept possession of the waste in 1998. I thought I understood the Senator to indicate that there is at least some measure of damages provided. We have heard all kinds of billions and billions of dollars. I wasn't sure that I heard the Senator's comments.

Mr. BRYAN. That is true.

Mr. BRYAN. That is, to advise all of the State agencies that were constituted by the State legislature or established in our Constitution, and to represent, protect, and defend the people of the State. That was my obligation.

Mr. BRYAN. The present state of the law, enacted by the Congress, prohibits a State that is being considered for a permanent facility to be the site of an interim or temporary facility. Moreover, at the request, as I recall it, of the Tennessee delegation some years ago, it prohibits the location of an interim facility until an application for licensure is made for the permanent facility. Now, that was sound policy. No. 1, no State, frankly, should have to bear the burden of both. That was the philosophy and the remnant of what was a fair act in the beginning--to look all over the country. The interim ought not to be located before the permanent, because we know that kind of tends to be de facto permanent. That was good policy, I say in answer to my friend.

Mr. BRYAN. By contract. And there are provisions, if I understand it, that specifically relate to the scenario that is going to occur, namely, that nuclear waste, its physical possession cannot be accepted in 1998, and there are specific provisions in that contract, if I understand correctly.

Mr. BRYAN. It was indeed. Every Governor takes an oath of office in which he or she indicates they will indeed uphold those rights and responsibilities, and I did so, as each and every Governor has done not only in Nevada but throughout the country, I am sure.

Mr. BRYAN. Am I correctly informed that each of the utilities has entered into a contract with the Department of Energy dating back to the enactment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator would yield, I am informed that Senator Bumpers has an amendment, the nature of which I do not know. And Senator Domenici has two amendments that I have just been made aware of. I did not know that until a few moments ago. This is just to inform the chairman. There are some things we are going to have to work through.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I might engage the chairman of the Energy Committee, on the two Domenici amendments, Senator Reid and I have no objection. We are prepared to accept those.

Mr. BRYAN. I am not. No. I am not aware of a second-degree amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the Senator may not have that. But the point that I think needs to be made--if the testing schedule at the Nevada test site should continue at its historical rate, it would take between 10,000 and 100,000 years of that testing schedule to equal the radioactive comparability of the nuclear waste that is being stored in the Nevada test site. I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. BRYAN. We have no objection, Mr. President.

Mr. BRYAN. I believe we are going to be able to resolve this in a minute or two.

Mr. BRYAN. May I inquire of my friend, it is my understanding, not at the request of the Senators from Nevada, but my understanding that there was at least a tentative understanding that we would not be having rollcall votes on these pending amendments until next week. Maybe there is some change. I emphasize for the benefit of all Senators and my colleagues, that is certainly not at the request of the Senators from Nevada, certainly not at the request of the Senator from Alaska, either. But if there has been a change, I think we need to make others aware of that.

Mr. BRYAN. I would say to my senior colleague, his guess is as good as mine. But we know this. We know that there are 43 States that have corridor routes. I envy our friend from Alaska with whom we have been engaged in this debate over the last few days. He is fortunate that his State is not among them. But most of the rest of us are. So this is not just a Nevada issue. You have 43 States. You have thousands and thousands of rail and highway miles involved. I remind my colleague that we have 51 million people who live within 1 mile of these rail and highway corridor routes. These are existing routes. Nothing is going to be done new in the context of any construction, or an attempt to bypass communities. We are talking about existing rails and highway corridors. So when the Senator asks the question of where those would be, may I say with great respect--and not trying to be flip about it--throw a dart at the map of the lower 48 States in America and his guess and my guess would be as good as any that could be conjectured.

Mr. BRYAN. Would the Senator from Idaho yield for a question or two?

Mr. BRYAN. Senator Bumpers has an amendment, and there are two amendments that may--I underscore the word ``may''--be offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici. I do not know what his intent may be with respect to them. But apparently those are among the amendments that have been filed, I would advise the chairman.

Mr. BRYAN. Yes.

Mr. BRYAN. I have never challenged the Senator's math. That was not the subject that I either excelled in or like. But it seems to me that the Senator is right. I remind my senior colleague that we had an accident, as I recall in 1982, in Livingston, LA. If we use a computer model to determine whether the proposed standards of these casks have no problem at all--these are casks not yet in existence but the proposed casks that would be used for this transit--that the temperatures generated in that accident--not a nuclear accident--but the temperatures were so high and so intense for such a long period of time that the cask design would fail. That indicates that there would be a release of radioactivity. That is not a theoretical, or speculative, or conjectural accident. That is one that actually occurred. If one uses a computer model in terms of the standards being proposed for these casks, those casks would have failed. That means those people in that community--I don't know the area--would have been placed at considerable risk for an extended period of time. So, as the Senator is suggesting, multiplying the number of accidents that may occur over the course of several decades, many communities could face that kind of exposure, and that is a legitimate concern, it seems to me, for each of us as we contemplate this very dangerous situation.

Mr. BRYAN. Is the Senator from Idaho aware of the fact that there has never been a contemplated interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain? I understood part of the colloquy, that the Senator was suggesting Yucca Mountain as the site for the interim storage. And my question to my friend from Idaho is, does the Senator from Idaho understand that there has never been a contemplated interim storage facility at Yucca Mountain?

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I thought I heard the Senator say that if S. 104 is enacted we would have not 109 reactor sites but 110 reactor sites. I invite the Senator's attention looking at this chart. If I understand the point he is trying to make, before S. 104 would be enacted--these would be the various reactor sites--every site prior to its enactment is still there and we add one more at Yucca Mountain, or at the Nevada test site. So we have 110.

Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator agree that S. 104 holds out a false promise, that somehow, if it were enacted, everything would disappear and wind up near Las Vegas?