Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Yes. Unanimous-Consent Request

Mr. BRYAN. Let me respond to a couple of things that the chairman of the Energy Committee has said that I think bears correction. First of all, the amendment, as cast--

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me add, if I may, the significance I find in this piece of legislation that we are offering today. This has for too long a time been characterized strictly as a Nevada issue, and many of my colleagues have, obviously, focused less time on this than my senior colleague and I, because Nevada is targeted as the interim storage facility in this piece of legislation. But the point that we have sought to make is that there is a national impact in the transportation of 85,000 metric tons--that is the emphasis, 85,000 metric tons--of nuclear waste in an order of magnitude never before seen. There have been over the years 2,500 shipments, but we are talking about 17,000, and as the Presiding Officer may recall from our debate earlier on this, those earlier 2,500 shipments involved a relatively short distance of about 900 miles or less. By reason of the proximity of the Nevada test site, as contrasted from the origin of the nuclear waste itself at the reactors, we are talking about thousands of miles. I think my colleagues will recall that we are talking about rail and highway corridors that go through 43 States. Forty-three States are involved. So it is not just Nevada. Forty-three States. To give you some idea of the size of each cask, although they have not yet been designed, what is contemplated is that a rail cask would weigh 125 tons and a truck cask would weigh 25 tons. You will recall that, in terms of the level of potential radioactivity, that is the equivalent of 200 bombs the size of Hiroshima. So many may wonder why we are suggesting that we do this with respect to high-level nuclear waste shipments. It is because the order of risk is so much greater and the consequences of failing to provide for it is much, much greater. The Presiding Officer represents the great State of Oklahoma. You will note that in Oklahoma, we have at least three different corridors that would be used. These are all rail corridors that would come through the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer. What we are simply saying is, ``Look, can a Governor have a greater responsibility and obligation to the citizens of the State that he or she represents than to make sure that adequate measures are taken to protect the health and safety of the citizens of that State?'' Mr. President, as you know, I was honored by the citizens of my own State to have been elected Governor twice. I have some idea of the responsibilities that a Governor undertakes, and there can be no greater responsibility than a Governor advocating on behalf of the people he represents to make sure that any actions that are within his or her power are done for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of the citizens. So that is what we are doing. Not only is the Presiding Officer's State involved, we have Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia--we can go on and on and on--Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, to go on and on. My point is that each of these Governors should have the ability to make sure adequate safeguards are taken. Let me just say, because this is an issue that has occurred out in the West and may not be widely publicized and it came to a boiling point during the recess, there is a series of shipments which are being received on the west coast from overseas nuclear reactors. They would come in through the Port of Oakland in California, ultimately to be located at the facility in Idaho. California's Governor complained vociferously that there had not been adequate notice, not adequate safeguards taken, and so he has filed, on behalf of the people of California, a lawsuit, or has directed the attorney general to do so, to challenge the adequacy of some of those provisions. My senior colleague, Senator Reid, pointed out the problems that have occurred in Europe. So these are not theoretical or hypothetical, these are real- life circumstances, and Governors ought to have the ability to do that. All we are saying is, look, each Governor must be satisfied that before a shipment goes through his or her State that safeguards are needed to protect the citizens of that State in literally hundreds of thousands of cities that this nuclear waste would go through. That strikes me as not being unreasonable. We talk a lot in this Congress of returning power to the States, not assuming all wisdom resides on the banks of the Potomac. Indeed, those who work in the Federal bureaucracy are vested with no greater wisdom than those who toil on behalf of a State government at the State level. I hear that time after time in many different contexts as we debate legislation on the floor. There is no greater opportunity that a Member can have than to say, in effect, ``I am implementing a policy that provides to each of the States that which I have philosophically espoused, namely, giving the Governor, as the chief executive officer of that State, the ability to undertake the necessary protections.'' I think that is a reasonable approach. I think it is something that every Governor would want. It is not partisan. Democratic Governors and Republican Governors alike would certainly want to be protected in terms of the 17,000 shipments that would pass through their States, through thousands of cities in America, small communities, and that is not unreasonable. And because these routes are identified here, as we are pointing them out--there is no great mystery--so that the State Governors could be contacted long in advance of any proposed shipment to work out the necessary health and safety precautions. I say to my colleagues that, however they come down on S. 104, this certainly is a measure that everybody ought to embrace because this is health and safety and it provides the ultimate protection for a Governor to take care of those persons in his or her State to the best of that Governor's ability. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BRYAN. It strikes me as curious, if I am hearing the Senator respond, that, indeed, the senior Senator and I have introduced for a number of years legislation that would accomplish the same provision that exists in the contract; namely, to the extent that there is not the ability to physically take possession, the utility would be entitled to a reimbursement in the form of the reduction in the payments made to the nuclear waste trust fund.

Mr. BRYAN. So the argument that we have heard in the Chamber that ratepayers will pay twice is specious, because to the extent that after 1998 nuclear waste would not be taken physically from a site, it cannot be under any scenario, the ratepayers would then be protected because any additional costs that the utilities would incur would be deducted from the payments that the utilities would have to make into the nuclear waste trust fund, so there would be no double payment.

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. I will.

Mr. BRYAN. Yes, we share that history together. I was elected twice as Governor of my State.

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. And they could use that as an offset in terms of what they are paying into the Nuclear Waste trust fund right now.

Mr. BRYAN. I was elected attorney general once.

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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. That was not the case, I say with respect. What is contemplated is interim storage at the Nevada test site. The Nevada test site and Yucca Mountain are two separate geographical areas. And the Senator was asking our distinguished chairman a series of questions. Does the Senator understand that if the President of the United States makes no finding with respect to suitability by March 31, 1999, then automatically the interim storage is designated at the Nevada test site automatically?

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

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. 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. The Senator from Nevada is correct; 17,000 shipments of approximately 85,000 metric tons, shipments that would occur over a period of several decades. So, in effect, what we would have, wherever you live in America, nuclear waste would be streaming into your community and into your State from virtually every point on the compass, not just for a brief period of time but for decades as contemplated.

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

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