The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP SITE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S2248-S2249 on March 19, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
____________________
