Mr. REID. While the Senator is getting ready, I would like to say a few things. 

First of all, there is no question that the two Senators from Nevada are doing everything we can to protect the State of
Nevada. But in the process of preparing, as we have for years, for this debate, we have also come to the conclusion that this is
not a Nevada issue; this is an issue for the well-being of all the people of this country. That is why organizations throughout this
country support opposition to S . 104 --churches, environmental groups, and cities are passing resolutions. 

The only supporters of this legislation are the very powerful nuclear industry who generate electricity. For example, there has
been some talk in this debate that the facility in Connecticut, the Haddam Neck reactor fuel pool would be full by 2001 and
the plant might have to close. There has been testimony before the Natural Resources Committee on February 5 that Haddam
Neck permanently closed on December 4, 1996, for reasons that had nothing to do with waste disposal issues. 

Mr. President, fuel fill-up dates have been exaggerated for reactors that have been examined. This is just all part of the game
played by the individuals who do not have rules--the nuclear power generating companies. They change the rules. They change
the rules in the very middle of the ball game. They change the rules during timeouts. It doesn't matter. Whatever meets their
greedy financial interests they satisfy that by changing the rules in the middle of the game. 

Right now we have 109 operating reactors in the United States. All of their waste is stored on site. In effect, S . 104 would
create 110 storage sites for nuclear waste using the same technology that is already used at some reactor sites and is available
to all the reactor sites. 

Why in the world would we want to create another site when we are spending $200 million a year trying to determine if Yucca
Mountain is suitable? 

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. REID. That is right. Although after S . 104 , not only would you have the additional site near Las Vegas, but in addition to
that you would have a significant number of other temporary sites caused because of accidents, traffic jams, and protests. I
mean that is what is not on the bottom chart. Not only do we have the proposed temporary repository near Las Vegas but you
will have several temporary sites as a result of the chaos that will ensue with this legislation. 

                                         [Page: S2982]

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? 

Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Nevada, we would have to show on this chart after S . 104 massive traffic jams.
Remember, to move it in Germany recently, it took 30,000 police. In addition to the 30,000 police, it required medical
personnel to haul the people to the hospital. Five hundred people were arrested. The waste only went 300 miles. Think about
what would happen if they were to move it 3,500 miles from the State of Maine to the State of Nevada. 

So I appreciate the question. The chart is very graphic and shows the potential danger of not having 109 sites but maybe
having 125 sites because of what would occur as a result of moving this. 

I repeat. Mr. President, if in fact these casks are so good, leave them where they are. In fact, it has been said during the
debate here today that the present technology of the casks indicate you can haul it, but in a crash of more than 30 miles an
hour the container might be breached, or if you had a fire that occurred as you are hauling that and the fire burns at more than
1,400 degrees you are in big trouble. And the big trouble would occur because diesel fuel burns at 1,800 degrees. That is
what propels trains and trucks. 

So the question is asked all the time. What do you want to do with it? You leave it where it is until there is a determination
made that we can transport it safely and there is a site to accept it. 

I also am compelled to respond to a number of things said earlier today by my friend from Idaho. In fact, the description was
used of picking up a quart of milk at a store and taking it home. He said no, no. Nuclear waste is safer to transport than that.
Well, try to explain that to the people that have really transported nuclear waste. If you look at what has gone on in this
country, you will find that Japan is actively pursuing a nuclear program based on reprocessing of nuclear fuel with the aim of
becoming energy independent. We understand why. They have no 

natural resources. But the facts speak volumes of different language. A serious accident at the Honshu breeder reactor, the
flagship of the Japanese reprocessing program, in December 1995, ended all thoughts that Japan could breed its own nuclear
fuel. Honshu to this day has not been restarted and probably will never restart. 

A second serious accident at the Tokyo reprocessing facility in March 1997, just a few weeks ago, ended all thoughts of
reprocessing as a serious option, in Japan. In fact, Japan cannot site any new nuclear plants due to overwhelming public
opposition. This fact has been acknowledged in numerous newspaper accounts. The Japanese Government is now laying aside
all hopes for nuclear expansion, and with reprocessing no longer a viable option Japan now faces a problem. But to think it can
be transported safely is just not true. 

I would also respond to my friend from Idaho. There has been talk here by him and others that there have been several
thousand shipments, a couple of thousand shipments of high-level nuclear waste made in the United States up to this date. Of
course, these shipments, mostly of naval reactor fuel, were not only far smaller than any shipment contemplated under this bill
but carried a radioactive inventory of thousands of curies rather than tens of millions of curies that would be carried by each
cask from a commercial reactor. 
These shipments typically travel far fewer miles. There were seven accidents in these 2,400 shipments. A ratio of one accident
for every 343 shipments. I say to my friend from Nevada. It has been established here that there has been one nuclear accident
for every 343 trips. I ask my friend. Is it not true that there is contemplated at least 17,000 shipments of nuclear garbage under
this bill? 

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. REID. I also ask my friend. Then, if it has been established that there would be 2,400 shipments and that we would have
7 accidents, a little math indicates to me that there would be about 50 accidents if the same ratio is maintained hauling these
17,000 shipments. Wouldn't that be about right? 

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. REID. I ask my friend. On the maps that he has on the chart to his left, contemplate with me, if he will, where he thinks 

the 50 accidents will be. 

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. REID. Mr. President, in short, S . 104 is bad policy. As I have indicated with this amendment, what is being done is a
further attempt to worsen this bill. S . 104 is an environmental nightmare. It is a financial and public safety threat to America. 

Is it any wonder that every environmental group in the United States supports the defeat of S . 104 ? In addition to churches as
has been laid on the Record, transportation unions believe that this legislation is truly a nightmare.