MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE A.J.R. 26 Sixty-eighth Session April 29, 1995 The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 1:00 p.m., on Saturday, April 29, 1995, Chairman Bache presiding at the Grant Sawyer State Office Building in Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas A. Bache, Chairman Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mr. Max Bennett Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Richard Bryan Senator Dina Titus - District 7 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Davies OTHERS PRESENT: William B. Andrews Esther Ramos/The Study Committee Bill Vasconi Stuart Waymire, engineer Ms. Terri Robertson, concerned citizen Mr. Chris Brown, Campaign Director/Campaign for Nevada's Future Ms. Judy Treichel/Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Bob Loux, for Brian McKay Tom McGowan Frank Tussing/Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business Harry Swainston, Deputy Attorney General Richard Nielsen, Executive Director/Citizen Alert Joseph Giordano Ronald Yowell Phillip Trice Neil Stupps David Garbarino Fred Toomey Bill Kelly Ms. Willem DeLange Dan DeLange Bill Flangas Frank Caine, President/Southern Nevada Building Trade Counsel Carlos Castillo George Logan Fred Dexter ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 26 - Expresses vehement opposition to storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. Senator Richard Bryan stated he wanted to share his perspective on the issue at hand which he had been struggling with for more than a decade. In terms of storage, lethal material (namely plutonium) remains deadly for tens of thousands of years. Thus, it becomes a catastrophic potential in terms of public health and safety. That is why studies have gone on for more than a decade and more than $4 billion has been expended. Senator Bryan indicated "From my perspective this is a public health and safety issue. No other state wants to have this waste." The great body of public opinion in the state of Nevada for thirteen years essentially has been largely unchanged. The great majority of people in every survey taken have expressed their strong opposition to it and the reason for that is the concern they have about health and safety. "A number of us grew up in southern Nevada and we recall four decades ago when, as youngsters, we were told there was no risk at all in terms of the detonation of the atomic bomb in the atmosphere...absolutely safe...so I was told not to be concerned about that...indeed I was in High School by the time that program got fully developed. We all became very excited about that...businesses changed their names (atomic groceries, atomic this or that). We all know now, four decades later, that nobody in his or her right mind...scientists or otherwise...would suggest that to detonate a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere is absolutely safe. We are told by some in the scientific community not to worry. I must say for those of us who have lived in southern Nevada for more than half a century, that is not a very persuasive argument. Secondly, I would like to make the point that our critics say, yes I don't want it but it is inevitable. The Nuclear Energy Institute and its predecessor, the American Nuclear Energy Counsel, spent millions on persuasive ads. on television and on radio and newspaper trying to persuade Nevadans that this was a good thing for us. And they were unsuccessful in so doing. President Reagan signed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act into law in January of 1983. Under that proposal adopted by Congress, a high level nuclear waste dump would be sited by 1998. That is roughly fifteen years from the date the law was signed by President Reagan. It is now twelve years later and still there are no quotes for the site of a high level permanent dump. Everybody acknowledges that the earliest this could occur would be the year 2010. Indeed, in recent years we've seen scientific opinion raising concerns about seismic, that is the presence of earthquakes...Nevada happens to be one of the most earthquake-prone regions in the country, concerns about volcanic activity in terms of geological perspective, the hydrology issue or the water table which is much an issue, and just earlier this year scientists not engaged by Nevadans, but by the Department of Energy, have raised the real concern that nuclear waste buried for an extended period of time could indeed explode and disseminate radioactivity over miles, miles away. We have spent billions and billions of dollars in the private sector to develop the world's finest tourism infrastructure...billions of dollars. It does not make sense to this Nevadan that we should ever embrace this concept and it is not inevitable, as some contend, in fact I think most people recognize that the likelihood of Yucca Mountain ever being licensed (yes, to use the language of one of the persons that testified before the Senate Energy Committee earlier this year, "About 50-50." We know a little something about the odds in Nevada because we've made a lot of money over the years encouraging people to play the odds our way." Continuing, Senator Bryan stated he had taken a week to go to Sweden and France to see how they handled nuclear waste. He noted no country in the world has made a decision in terms of permanent storage: Britain is contemplating making that decision in 40 years; France (15 years); Sweden (25-40 years). In all of those countries, generic studies are to be made without being site specific. So the model in Europe is to do just the opposite...not to make a decision, not to be site specific, and not to try to legislate "stuff that's down somebody's throat, which as you know was the thrust of the `screw Nevada bill' which was enacted by Congress in 1987. So, in my view this is a very, very important resolution. It is imperative the Legislature once again go on record, reaffirm its opposition in a bi-partisan way (this has always been a bi-partisan issue) and I would encourage the committee to adopt this resolution and report it favorably." During committee discussion Senator Bryan stated the resolution should be broad enough to include interim storage as that represented the biggest threat. No other country in the world places its interim storage facility hundreds of miles from their reactors. In Britain, France and Sweden the interim storage facilities are located at the reactor sites. Mrs. Krenzer wondered how the negative attitide is being transmitted in Washington in that it has been said Nevadans do not care one way or the other. Senator Bryan explained this is part of the Democratic process. Lobbyists go back to Washington saying people would be very receptive to the idea...Lincoln County, for example, saying they would love to have it. "Even though I disagree with their view, they have the right to share their opinon." He specified part of the concern was with jobs....what will happen, for example to Nevada Test Site employees (top level scientists, top level technical people, etc.) in the future? Because of concern for their jobs and natural advocates of Yucca Mountain, they encourage others to get on board. "We're concerned about their jobs too. That's why I'm pushing for solar power; there is a delegation working on this Tritium facility, hydrodynamics, National Ignition Facility, etc. (all of which do not involve storage). So there are alternatives that we do need to support but it does not follow we have to embrace permanent storage." He further stated the Lincoln County issue was an unfortunate development and there was not a shadow of a possibility that anything would ever be located there. Responding to questions regarding the possible loss of federal benefits, Senator Bryan emphasized the matter was most definitely a health and safety issue and should never be compromised for any so-called benefits. He noted money is appropriated each year for victims of atomic detonations. Sadly, scientists who claimed it would be absolutely safe were known to have sent their own families out of town. On the subject of plutonium, Mr. Bennett said it must be respected but not feared. The only danger of plutonium to the human body, he noted, was actual ingestion. He pointed out every plant in the country of France was identical in design and they use a re-processing technique for their spent fuel so that it can be re-used. He asked if this process should be looked at within the resolution. Senator Bryan said emphatically no. He noted the volume of nuclear waste is actually increased and in terms of underground storage a larger cavity may be required because a special separation must exist between canisters. Also, the National Association of State Utility Regulators makes the point that the waste product is actually hotter...so a greatly enlarged facility may be needed. He added there has been some concern over the years about the proliferation issue concerning unstable countries such as Iran and Iraq. "So these are policy questions that go beyond the issue of stating our position in Nevada. There may be some merit...France has done it...but that would be my response." Mr. Nolan posed the question of recycling radioactive materials that are shipped here and rendered harmless; would that be a reasonable use for the Nevada Test Site? Senator Bryan responded by stating when you reprocess, you have plutonium, uranium and a waste product; there is still a permanent disposal problem. What is used as a fuel is called "MOX" (a mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium). Some nuclear reactors are able to use that fuel...not all. American industry has not attempted this due to the high cost involved. Senator Dina Titus, District 7, expressed gratitude for holding the Las Vegas meeting. She noted it was very important that Clark County citizens had the opportunity to active participation as many could not have been able to come to Carson City. She stated she would not repeat her speech made several times in the past arguing against placing the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. She noted clearly it should not be placed there for health reasons, economic reasons, and political reasons. "We don't want any more federal intervention in this state than we've alaready got now." She emphasized the reason she was appearing was to urge committee members to pass the resolution because she deemed it critical we continue to send a unified message of opposition back to Washington, not a mixed message. And after the exercise with Lincoln County, there may be further confusion about where Nevada does stand and this will clear up that confusion. Senator Titus further commented, "If you will recall last session there was a resolution in the Senate to negotiate for benefits. We all fought very hard against that resolution for the same reason, that it sends a mixed message. We were successful in defeating that resolution, fourteen to seven. We know that the Governor is opposed to Yucca Mountain, the Attorney General is opposed, Senator Bryan, Senator Reid...we have a letter from the President of the United States saying he's opposed to any pending resolution...I think it's important that we keep a united front. I don't think that a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is good for Nevada. Some 75% of the people in this state also don't think it's good for Nevada, so I urge you to pass this resolution." Mr. William Andrews asked that A.J.R. 26 not be adopted in its present form because it is unlikely to be effective. His testimony is submitted as Exhibit C. Esther Ramos, representing The Study Committee, stated in 1975 the Nevada Legislature passed a resolution asking the federal government to bring spent nuclear fuel to the Nevada Test Site. It was strongly supported by Richard Bryan and signed by former Governor O'Callaghan. The resolution explained why such waste should be at the test site. When Richard Bryan was Governor of Nevada, he asked that the Legislature consider the creation of a new county in Nevada to be called Bullfrog County. The concern was if the feds paid big dollars for the storage of nuclear waste, all of the money would go to one county and if it was controlled by the state, the state would benefit. This concept was not accepted. Would it be a good idea to re-consider it? Continuing, Ms. Ramos indicated while Nevada polls all prefer not to have nuclear waste stored here, they want benefits for the study that is going on. She further indicated the Legislature should not pass the current resolution but should re-instate an amended version of the 1975 A.J.R. 15, file No. 184. Mr. Bill Vasconi, private citizen, commented we are in a nation that wants to make sure there is a storage area available for spent fuel oils. We are in a generation that caused the problem and should not foist it on future generations. He said "tourists might be affected; we want them to come and spend money here but when the nation asks for a storage area, we haven't got time for it." Mr. Stuart Waymire, mechanical engineer, explained he is writing a book on Yucca Mountain. He said the current resolution offers no alternative or solution to Yucca Mountain. He stated in all probability the storage of radioactive waste would be coming to Nevada and "instead of spending time on a senseless resolution, a Blue Ribbon committee should be set up from people in the engineering community at UNLV and UNR to look at the real problem which is mismanagement in the whole situation." Ms. Terri Robertson, concerned citizen, stated although there were many changes throughout the years concerning the present issue, the one consistent factor is that people remain against the storage of radioactive waste in Nevada. She expressed support of A.J.R. 26. Mr. Chris Brown, Campaign Director/Campaign for Nevada's Future, spoke in support of A.J.R. 26. He stated his organization opposes all efforts to bring new nuclear industry and radioactive waste into Nevada, while promoting the use of alternative energy. His testimony is submitted as Exhibit D. On the subject of transportation, Mr. Brown noted nuclear waste would have to be taken from reactors across 35 states, so the resolution would be seen as a positive step by those citizens who live along the transportation route who were concerned about the safety potential in their community. Ms. Judy Treichel of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force said across the nation there has been a tremendous call for information about Yucca Mountain and people were totally opposed to it. She urged committee support of A.J.R. 26. Mr. Bob Loux, speaking for Brian McKay, Chairman of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects, read a prepared statement in support of A.J.R. 26 emphasizing the importance of sending a strong message that the Legislature remain unalterably opposed to the storage or disposal of high-level nuclear waste in this state (Exhibit E). Mr. Tom McGowan referred to a report from DOE headquarters. He gave a review of journal articles and catagorized underground storage as irrational, irresponsible and unconscionable. Mr. Frank Tussing, Director of Economic Development/Nevada Alliance for Defense, Energy and Business, formerly known as the Nevada Test Site Contractors Association, spoke in opposition to A.J.R. 26. His testimony is submitted as Exhibit F. Harry Swainston, Deputy Attorney General, said the state of Nevada adamantly opposes the repository at Yucca Mountain and regarded the language in the new resolution as highly acceptable. Mr. Nolan questioned the dollar amount the state has spent in defending itself against the nuclear repository being located here. Mr. Swainston did not believe the funds had all been expended but noted the Legislature had appropriated $25,000 per year for the past five to six years. Richard Nielsen, Executive Director/Citizens Alert, spoke in support of A.J.R. 26. His written testimony is submitted as Exhibit G. Joseph Giordano stated he favored the Yucca Mountain Project as it was the safest place in the nation for storage. Ronald Yowell also favored the project and objected to the state fighting it with taxpayers' money. The project would bring job opportunities. Phillip Trice reiterated concern about jobs in that casinos produce inadequate wages. He noted great strides had been taken in safety and recommended keeping the study going. Neil Stuppy, member of Ironworkers 416, also favored continued study. He said, "Funding has already begun, so why stop it now." David Garbarino, private citizen, declared unless the project was determined to be unsafe there was no reason to interfere with the current study. Fred Toomey, a 68 year old retiree, questioned the validity of "an overwhelming majority of Nevadans" in the resolution. He also stressed the safety of working in that environment. Bill Kelly stated this was a safety/health issue and there had not been a problem with the 106 reactors throughout the country. Also, over $4.2 billion has been spent in the study of this issue. He questioned, "Where has it gone?" Ms. Willem DeLange spoke in support of A.J.R. 26. She spoke of earthquakes and volcanoes being a viable concern and told of cancer victims in areas where nuclear plants had been a contributing factor. She noted there were railroad lines being built near Yucca Mountain for the purpose of bringing waste in. Dan DeLange spoke of greed and shortsightedness. He was an avid supporter of A.J.R. 26. Bill Flangas, a mining engineer, worked for years at the Nevada Test Site. He said the storage of nuclear waste is a national issue and he took issue with the hysteria resulting from discussion of the issue. Categorically, he stated, people who have overstated dangers of nuclear waste and those who have understated it have done our country a terrible disservice. He described the Nevada Test Site as dedicated land and uniquely suited for that purpose. Personnel had dealt with decisions, ramifications and materials for four decades and had an outstanding safety record. He urged the committee not to go forward with the bill, not to fear the future and to make the best of the high tech available to us. Mr. Frank Caine, President/Southern Nevada Building Trade Counsel, said unequivocally ten thousand people in the construction business have overwhelmingly endorsed the study of the nuclear repository. He criticized rhetoric and scare tactics and recommended committee opposition to A.J.R. 26. Carlos Castillo, a Yucca Mountain worker, emphasized the safety of work conditions and advocated continuous study of the project. He voiced his opposition to A.J.R. 26. George Logan/ Ironworkers 433, spoke against the resolution and advocated the continuation of the study. Chairman Bache read a testimony from Speaker Dini (Exhibit H) urging unanimous adoption of A.J.R. 26. Bill Vasconi commented that all-purpose canisters for storage could be manufactured locally which, in itself, was a $4.5 to $5 billion project. Fred Dexter said Nevada has become a competitive state in many areas and growth we have enjoyed could easily be reversed. He spoke in support of A.J.R. 26. There being no further testimony on A.J.R. 26 Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ____________________________ Christine Shaw, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ________________________________________ Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache, Chairman ________________________________________ Assemblyman Joan A. Lambert, Chairman Assembly Committee on Government Affairs April 29, 1995 Page