THE EIGHTH DAY
Carson City(Monday), February 8, 1999
Senate called to order at 11:15 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Pastor Louie Locke.
Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever. (Psa. 118-29) We do give You thanks this morning and ask that You guide, direct and give wisdom to the Senators of this body in their deliberations and decisions. Bless also their families during these very busy 120 days. In the Name of the Most High,
Amen.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Madam President:
Your Committee on Commerce and Labor, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 7, 8, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By Senators James, Porter, Titus, Rawson, Carlton, Amodei, Care, Coffin, Mathews, McGinness, O’Connell, O’Donnell, Raggio, Rhoads, Schneider, Townsend, Washington, Wiener; Assemblymen Perkins, Buckley, Cegavske, Gibbons, Williams, Anderson, Angle, Bache, Berman, Carpenter, Chowning, Claborn, Collins, de Braga, Evans, Freeman, Giunchigliani, Gustavson, Hettrick, Humke, Koivisto, Lee, Manendo, McClain, Mortenson, Neighbors, Ohrenschall, Parks, Price, Segerblom, Thomas, Tiffany and Von Tobel:
Senate Joint Resolution No. 4—Urging the Congress of the United States not to enact the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.
Senator James moved that all rules be suspended, reading so far had considered first reading, rules further suspended, Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 declared an emergency measure under the Constitution and placed on third reading and final passage.
Remarks by Senator James.
Senator James requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
This resolution addresses legislation pending in Congress, which we understand from our Congressional Delegation, may only receive one hearing in a subcommittee in the House of Representatives. We were requested to consider this resolution for that reason and that is why it is an emergency measure. The hearing will be Wednesday of this week, and it may be the only hearing that it gets in the House of Representatives. As you will hear when we talk about the nature of this bill, it is a drastic measure in terms of the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada on an interim basis.
Motion carried unanimously.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 138—AN ACT relating to local improvements; authorizing a levy of a special assessment in all counties for the extraordinary maintenance, repair and improvements of certain projects located in a redevelopment area; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 139—AN ACT relating to state property; authorizing the chief of the purchasing division of the department of administration to transfer, upon request, any surplus supplies, materials or equipment of a state agency to another state agency without cost to the requesting state agency; authorizing the chief of the purchasing division to sell surplus supplies, materials or equipment of state agencies under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By Senator O’Connell:
Senate Bill No. 140—AN ACT relating to insurance; requiring insurers to include certain information concerning the general premium tax on notices of renewal sent to insureds; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By Senator Washington:
Senate Bill No. 141—AN ACT making an appropriation to the Department of Transportation for the construction of sound barriers on McCarran Boulevard between Pyramid Way and Baring Boulevard; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Washington moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By Senator Rawson:
Senate Bill No. 142—AN ACT making an appropriation to the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Nevada for the education, training and support of persons caring for family members with serious brain disorders; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By Senator Rawson:
Senate Bill No. 143—AN ACT making an appropriation to “Kids Count” for determination of the programs for children that lack funding; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 144—AN ACT relating to public works projects; revising the provisions concerning the progress payments made to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers for public works projects; prescribing the amount that may be withheld from those payments; requiring the person who withholds certain amounts from those payments to provide notice and the reason for withholding those amounts to the recipient of the payments; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By Senators O’Connell and Townsend:
Senate Bill No. 145—AN ACT relating to insurance; limiting the amount that a health insurer may charge providers of health care to be included on a list of providers that is given to insureds of the insurer; making various changes concerning payment of claims by health insurers; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By Senators Titus, Amodei, Mathews, O’Donnell, Porter, Raggio, Rawson and Shaffer:
Senate Bill No. 146—AN ACT relating to crimes; providing an enhanced penalty for the assault or battery of a taxicab driver; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Titus moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 20.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
President Hunt announced that if there were no objections the Senate would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 11:29 a.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 11:44 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Joint Resolution No. 4.
Resolution read third time.
Remarks by Senators James, Titus, Neal, Shaffer, Jacobsen and Porter.
Senator James requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator James:
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to make some brief remarks concerning Senate Joint Resolution No. 4. I apologize that it has taken this much time to have it printed and back to us. I do think this is an important measure, and it is extremely important business of the Nevada Legislature to update and make our position known concerning this Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. I had the Secretary dispense with the reading of the entire measure because nearly every member of this body and those of the other house have co-sponsored this measure. Since you have had the opportunity to review it, we won’t go through the entire measure. I would however like to highlight some of the sections.
I was advised, last week, by a member of our Congressional Delegation, Congressman Gibbons, that this bill was going to be scheduled for a hearing. Although a bill like this would normally go to three different committees and subcommittees, in this case, it may just go to one—the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. It will be heard in that committee on Wednesday. Our Governor is planning to leave tonight in order to testify and would like to take this resolution with him. This is likely to be the only hearing that this bill will receive.
When I asked for co-sponsors in these chambers, one Senator who agreed to co-sponsor the measure and was strongly in favor of it said that it seems that we have had enough demagoguery on this issue. I have great respect for that Senator and took those comments to heart. Over the weekend when I made the decision to take this measure before the Senate, I decided that I would try to find exactly what are the critical facts and only talk about them in the course of my remarks. Those facts are what I will confine myself to today. I will try to move this measure forward since the Assembly is waiting for us to process the resolution. It is important to understand what has been the precursor to this. In November of 1998, our Congressional Delegation sent a letter to the Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson, indicating that under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act on the books now, and the suitability guidelines that are contained in that law and are enacted under that law in the Code of Federal Regulations, Yucca Mountain does not qualify. It is not an argument. It is not a matter of opinion. It simply does not qualify. The evidence is there which is very specific. Those guidelines are found in 10 CFR 960. That is important because of what the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999, that this resolution deals with, is going to do with that part. There are basically three kinds of evidence from Yucca Mountain that show that it should be disqualified. By running these chlorine 36 tracer residues, it has become abundantly clear and irrefutable that rain water passes through this site in a period of less than 50 years. It is interesting the way they have arrived at this. It is through looking at certain elements in the water that could only have come from above-ground nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean, brought down by the climate through rain and found now through the last 50 years at this site.
The second thing is that the Yucca Mountain repository will likely result in significant amounts of radio-nuclides degrading the quality of off-site supplies of ground water that are presently suitable for use for human consumption and crop irrigation in the area.
Next, as you have all heard, the seismic activity in and around Yucca Mountain is tremendous. Seismic risk is said, by project officials currently studying the site, to be acceptably low, but it is acknowledged that the potential risks during the hazardous lifetime of the waste for the repository to be impacted by an earthquake in the magnitude of 7.0 to 7.5 are extremely high. This is attested to by the fact that, in 1992, there was a 5.6 level earthquake at Little Skull Mountain which is adjacent to the study site. Over a period of 20 years, there have been 621 earthquakes within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain. And last month, there were seven earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or greater on the Richter Scale. That was almost two per week last month.
Yucca Mountain is formed by volcanic events. The risk of recurrence of volcanism is also deemed to be acceptedly low by the project officials. But, Science Magazine, in 1998, said that their studies showed that movement of the earth’s crust at the site is approximately 20 times greater than previously estimated and that it is currently accelerating.
Finally, with the risk of human intrusion attempting to access the numerous minerals and natural resources in the area, it could cause release of radioactive waste.
Further, an independent study shows that, for the first time, the real cost of a high level nuclear waste disposal could top $53.9 billion, and taxpayers would have to pay half the price tag. That is because the Nuclear Waste Fund which comes from the small amount you pay if you use nuclear powered energy, is only going to generate $28 billion. The balance would have to be borne by the taxpayers. Furthermore, the study assumes that there will be no earthquakes at Yucca Mountain, no large underground water reserves will be discovered, no health hazards will besiege the underground workers and no electrical fires will occur to add to these projected expenses. The Pete Marwick Study that these numbers were based upon stated “our assessment assumes that no accidents in a cross country shipment campaign involving 16,920 legal weight truck shipments and 37.6 million cask shipment miles on often congested public highways plus 4,500 dedicated train shipments over 9.1 million miles of heavily used rails will occur.” That is a pretty broad assumption and is likely not to be a correct one.
So, what is Congress doing in the face of all these facts and statistics? First of all, Secretary Richardson simply ignored the petition by our delegation. He took no action with respect to it at all. In fact, he did not even get back to us and say that they do not agree with the facts that disqualify the site. Instead, you have the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. What is the most critical thing that this new law, if enacted by Congress, is going to do? It is found in our resolution on page 2, the second WHEREAS clause. It will specifically revoke the Federal regulations that establish guidelines for determining suitability of the site. There was confusion in my mind when I first heard of this. I thought they meant only the interim site selection, but I found out that this is not so. It is going to revoke 10 CFR part 960 which is a very important number. This contains the site suitability, which has been the basis of the entire study of Yucca Mountain as to ground water breaching, as to seismic activity, as to potential volcanism, as to human intrusion¾all those things that they have been doing at the site to determine whether or not those things disqualify this site because it is going to present unreasonable risk to people, either now or in the future, and is going to be revoked completely under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. The response by Congress is that they set down the rules. The Nuclear Industry and the Department of Energy could not follow those rules, so they are going to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to eventually site the waste at Yucca Mountain. That is absolutely unfair and is the wrong way to go.
What else would the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 do? It also states that nuclear waste would be transported by way of a national highway system or by rail from 109 nuclear reactors travelling side by side with the American people, next to their homes and schools, and travelling through 43 states. Each rail cask holds 24 fuel assemblies. In terms of radioactivity, each fuel assembly contains ten times the long lived radioactivity released by the Hiroshima bombs. That means that each waste assembly is the equivalent, in terms of long lived radioactivity, of 240 Hiroshima bombs. Shipping containers are only designed to withstand a crash into an immovable object at 30 miles per hour, while trains and trucks will often travel twice that speed. If you think that we are actually going to have these 16,920 shipments across the country in trucks with none of them being in an accident, that is a little bit naïve. The Department of Energy has no plans to test the new waste containers, thus making accidents more disastrous and more frequent.
The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a bipartisan commission created by Congress and consisting of the best United States scientists, concluded in their March 1996 report “there is no compelling, technical or safety reason to move spent fuel to a central facility.” Bill McGovern, director of Critical Mass, states “this bill would transfer liability of radioactive waste from the nuclear utilities that created it to the U.S. taxpayer.” That is probably one of the most critical things to bring out. What the nuclear industry really wants is to get the liability off of themselves. There is a law in Congress which says that Congress will absolutely accept title to the nuclear waste at a certain year. They have not done that. The Supreme Court has ruled that they have to do that, but you must remember that legislation was passed at the behest of the nuclear power industry. That is why Congress agreed to take title to it in the first place. The total cost to store the waste at the site where it was created is only $224 to $300 million compared to a cost of $2.3 billion to store it at a central site just through the year 2002. According to the Department of Energy, a radioactive accident could cost up to $19.4 billion to clean up and take 460 days to complete. This does not pertain to Nevada. This concerns the 43 states through which this waste must pass in order to get to Nevada. This is a national issue and not just a Nevada issue. I know our Congressional Delegation will do a good job in bringing that out to the committee. A release of only a small fraction, 1380 curies of the cask content, would be sufficient to contaminate 42 square miles of either a rural or populated area. If you think this waste is only going to be transported through rural areas, all you need do is look at the new map that was published on February 5, 1999, which shows the truck and rail routes across this country. St. Louis will be the hub of nuclear shipments throughout this country. Whoever is responsible for representing that city should be on the side of Nevada in dealing with this issue.
When I was asked by Congressman Gibbons to look at this problem, I had great trepidation concerning this. I am not an expert in this area. I know what I have read in news reports, through resolutions and information we have received during the period of time I have been in this Legislature. I wanted to be able to speak intelligently on this issue, so I grabbed all the studies I could find off the Internet which is where many of the reports I have referred to have come from. Several things come to mind, as we pass this resolution and urge Congress not to pass this act and do the terrible two things which it will do—first of all, to get rid of the suitability clause for the Yucca Mountain Site and secondly, to store the waste at the test site on an interim basis. As we do that, do we have any responsibility, in Nevada, to participate in the national debate over what really should be done with nuclear waste? Since Nevada does not have any nuclear reactors within its borders, we really have less responsibility. I don’t know if our citizens will be buying nuclear generated power, but we certainly have not participated in the development of nuclear energy within our state. Nevertheless, this is a national problem. We in this country decided a long time ago to have nuclear energy generated by fission, which is a terrible technique which generates waste. It is cheaper than fusion, but it generates all of the waste that we now have to deal with. Everyone involved with this, both in Congress and the Nuclear Power Industry, could foresee this coming down the pike. What should be done with this? I think, as we fight it here in Nevada, it is good for us to offer our thoughts concerning this problem. What I did was to talk to one of our own members of the Legislature, Assemblyman Harry Mortenson who is a nuclear physicist, and learn more about what this waste consists of. I found that nuclear fuel is enriched uranium 238. It is enriched with uranium 235. Once it is spent, what you have left is approximately 90 percent uranium 238, a small amount of uranium 235 and the fission by-products. These by-products contain some 90 different isotopes with all sorts of different half lives. Then, you find that many of these isotopes have peaceful and good uses. For example, cobalt 60 is used in industrial X-rays. Plutonium 238 is the primary battery for powering satellites and generates heat and power for many decades. Many other isotopes have a number of medical uses. The science on the uses of these different isotopes which can be extracted from nuclear waste is growing everyday. The likelihood is, that when this nuclear waste is stored, it is going to be pulled out within the next 50 years or sooner, to try to extract and use these isotopes commercially and for other good human uses. What should happen to the nuclear waste? First of all, money derived from the rate-payers across the country is being wasted. It should be placed in a trust fund. It should not be further spent on the process of trying to find a central repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. Instead, the money should be spent on recycling nuclear waste or changing its chemical properties to affect its half life and radioactivity. It is much safer to store nuclear waste on-site. The sponsors of this legislation claim that it would be very safe to store this material in an interim storage facility in Nevada. However, there is one thing that they don’t tell you. This is that the same storage techniques currently used at the nuclear power plants will be used at Yucca Mountain although it will not have a roof to protect it as some current on-site storage facilities do. Not only that, you have to realize that nuclear waste is deemed to be “too hot,” in one of the articles I read, to be moved for five years. So it can’t be moved and will continue to be stored on-site for at least five years. We are still going to have on-site storage. Central storage, even if it comes to Nevada, and we certainly hope it does not, isn’t going to solve the problem of having on-site storage in the first place.
Madam President, those are the main things that I was able to glean in my quick and dirty research. I don’t want to belabor the time here; but in closing, I want to urge our Congressional Delegation and our Governor in his testimony to urge those in Congress to think twice about what they are doing. We have just gone through a period in this country of taking on the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry was operating at the expense of the health of the citizens across this country, selling something that was extremely dangerous, without giving the full facts about what it was. I fully support what the country and the individual states have done to try to get a handle on that problem. They took on a huge industry, and the battle is being won. When I think about the nuclear power industry, they have basically had their way in Congress. They had their way in passing the original Nuclear Waste Act which said that the Federal Government is going to take all the junk that they convinced them to generate and put it out in Nevada. If we can take on the tobacco industry, why can’t we stand up to the nuclear power industry?
I would urge those members of Congress who are going to hear testimony and read this resolution to not vote for the 1999 Act. I would urge them not to deliberately blind themselves to all of the facts I have presented today. I would urge them not to participate in the national scandal that is nuclear waste and to think of those who they represent instead of marching to the beat of the nuclear power industry’s drum.
This Sunday, in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the newspaper is publishing stories on the 100 most influential people in Las Vegas and Nevada over the past 200 years. The thought came to my mind when I read about these people who influenced our state during those years: What if they would have decided to store something as dangerous as nuclear waste here, what kind of legacy would they have left us? Hopefully, in the face of all the evidence, those leaders that are being honored in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, would never have made such a decision. I urge those members of Congress to think about their children and their children’s children and vote against the measure in Congress. I urge all of you in this house to support the resolution and send it back to Washington, D.C., with a strong message from the Nevada Legislature against the Nuclear Policy Act of 1999. Thank you.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of this resolution and commend Senator James for his informative arguments.
As Congress considers the construction of an interim storage facility in our State, we in Nevada should keep in mind the warning of a wise man who once said, “Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution.” Therefore, our opposition to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 should be no less vehement, no less persistent and no less united than has been the long-time opposition to the permanent Yucca Mountain facility, expressed over the past 15 years by Senators Reid and Bryan, Governor Bob Miller, Attorney General Bryan McKay and a number of us in this legislature who have sponsored and supported similar resolutions in the past. I hope Congress is listening.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I have some comments I would like to make on this particular issue. I say this particular issue because, having been associated with the Legislature going on 27 years, this issue keeps coming back, coming back and coming back. We seem to give new birth to the opposition to this issue every so often. I remember that, back in the eighties, a gentleman appeared before the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities. He spoke in reference to this particular issue, and he made mention of the fact of how this issue would be propagandized then and into the future. To hear this issue now come back before us, after this Legislature has acted not one time, not two times but three times in the past to specify the State’s position relative to this issue of nuclear waste, we now have before us Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 which speaks to Congress concerning the waste issue. I find it somewhat amusing that we find our young Senator from Las Vegas now leading this fight. It is somewhat further amusing to hear our young Senator address Congress as the bad person in this regard. I had to think that what we are actually talking about here is a Republican Congress. Both the House and the Senate have a majority of Republican members who are putting this issue before the people of the country and attempting to do something with the nuclear waste problem. It is somewhat amusing to see this happening. Then, when I read the resolution, it tells us that this waste would require unprecedented shipment through 43 states which would endanger the lives of 53 million Americans. Through this resolution, we have now taken the position that Nevada has to protect 43 other states and 53 million other Americans who allegedly live within one mile of the proposed transportation route. We have no evidence of this, so we have to take the young Senator at face value that this is the case. If we are only talking about the interim storage, then are we not saying that we are acceptable to the placement of a permanent storage of nuclear waste. This seems to be the suggestion of this resolution. It also speaks in another area that the Nuclear Waste Act of 1999 exacerbates the risk of the danger of this high level nuclear waste when we move it from place to place. I found that statement to be somewhat amusing because last summer, just 30 miles from here, a train came through Reno loaded with spent fuel rods. These were the same type of fuel rods which we are speaking about in this resolution. I saw no one out there attempting to stop that train. In fact, I only heard someone comment afterward that this train had passed through Reno, Nevada, the Biggest Little City in the World. No one, not even the young Senator, made a statement in reference to that train coming through Reno with nuclear waste residing on those flat cars. Maybe no one knew about this, but I doubt that. I live in Las Vegas, and I read about it going to occur almost four months before the train was due to travel through Reno.
The resolution goes on to say that despite the serious flaws with the proposed Yucca Mountain site, if high nuclear waste is put there, it would be revoking the Federal regulation that established guidelines for the permanent suitability of the waste site. I don’t know what that means, but we have to accept the statement on face value. Upon revoking the above regulation or law, the young Senator tells that the water that travels through this site and the climactic stability as far as the characterization of the same would be eliminated. I don’t know what that means. Maybe it would have been better had this resolution been referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities which is the committee that is supposed to look at these types of things and then make a judgement. If that had occurred, some of us could be satisfied that we had the proper hearing rather than having the young Senator come before this body and saying that he pulled information off the Internet and that is sufficient information for judging and voting on the issue.
Now, the young Senator referred to the Nevada Test Site and all the seismic activity that occurs in that area. Well, I’m not a geologist, but in reading the everyday newspaper over the number of years that I have lived in the State of Nevada, I have come to understand that Nevada is one of the highest seismic areas in the country. So, that is not new. If you lie still for a moment at night, you can feel the tremors. You can feel the tremors even here in Carson City. How else would we have the Sierra Nevada mountain range if we did not have such a disturbance underneath the area.
The young Senator has made reference to the nuclear reactors that are not present in the State of Nevada. That is true. I think Senator Townsend who chaired the interim committee on electrical restructuring heard this question asked by me of the power company. The question was addressed to Sierra Pacific and the Nevada Power Company as to whether or not they purchase power from any nuclear reactors. Without hesitation, the answer was that they purchase power on open market, and we do not distinguish whether or not it comes from nuclear reactors. To answer your question, in Nevada, yes we do buy power on the open grid to light those millions of lights in Las Vegas and Reno. Somehow, nuclear power plays a part in some of that.
What are we saying? Are we saying that we do not understand the issue? Are we saying that this issue is so serious that we cannot deal with it? I doubt it. And I have my own experience to refer to because I happen to be cleared for nuclear power. As early as 1956, I had a “Q” clearance. I have worked on developing cruise missiles which were nuclear powered. I have worked with people from the scientific community for this issue. The point I make is that, if you are going to propagandize this issue, then put it in perspective in the order of threat assessment, nuclear power is down on the list. What comes up is anthrax and napalm. If you burst a napalm in Reno, you are going to have to get out of Dodge. We have already experienced what the scare of anthrax will do when the FBI was told that there was anthrax in someone’s vehicle. The protocol, as I understand it, was to shoot the person if they had opened the trunk of their car. This was because they could not allow the population to be exposed to that deadly substance. On the other hand with nuclear waste, you cordon off the area, dig it up and transport it out of the area.
The young Senator has made reference as to the make up of the fission rods. He talked about uranium 238. I happen to know something about uranium 238. Yes, when you burn the fission rods, you do get uranium 238. It’s weapon grade, but it is not as much so as was indicated.
Allow me, in closing, to give you some history. Everyone has seen pictures of the Sudan Crater. Everybody, at one time, has seen newsreels where bombs were burst which sent up mushroom clouds. It was valuable to the defense of the nation at one time during the cold war. Many experiments have taken place there, both above and under ground. May I also add, in the early development of the nuclear reactor which was a national policy, the Nevada Test Site played a very important role in helping in its development. It also played a very important role in trying to determine how the generated waste was going to be stored. These were issues long before they became a political issue. As early as 1960, the Nevada Test Site was working on a project called “Climax.” They were testing for storage possibility 1400 feet under the ground. Not only that, at one time, these fuel rods that we are so afraid of were coming back packed at the test site and then shipped out. This is a red herring to tell the people how dangerous these rods are when they come back to the test site. History is that at one point those fuel rods were packed, put on a truck and shipped to the various reactors throughout the country. I can understand some of the fear. And I can also understand that those in the past have utilized this issue for political purposes. I have seen it over and over again. And it is a good issue because it literally scares the hell out of folks into thinking that something is going to happen to them. It is just like any other dangerous element. If you do not use caution, you will be harmed by it.
There is a young man who recently was elected to this Legislature who was born at Los Alamos and held this item in his hand. I was talking with him the other day, and I saw nothing deformed about him. But if you have never been there, never seen it, then you depend on someone getting the information from the Internet and telling you what it is. You find yourself being frightened and passing resolutions which allude to certain facts without proof.
Madam President, I’d like to close by saying that this issue has been before this Legislature many times. I have been talked about due to my stand on the issue, but somehow, I am not afraid to stand up and let people know how I feel about the issue. Maybe I have not learned how to play politics yet. Maybe I have not learned how to use these issues to my advantage. I rise and tell you what I think about it and what I understand about it. If I had not been associated with it in such a way, I probably would be following the crowd on this issue, but because I have been exposed, because I have been to the Nevada Test Site, because I have traveled all over this country visiting sites where this waste is stored, I knew, of course, that sometime in the future those waste pools were going to fill up and would have to be moved. I know from a historical point of view that Congress went into this whole idea of building a nuclear reactor because they wanted cheap electricity. That policy was adopted by the entire United States at one time and was even adopted by this Legislature. Somehow, when we get to the point where we can convince the people otherwise, this can be used to elevate one’s position. We have seen it happen before on this issue. It is time for someone to stand up and say “wait a minute, let’s rein this thing in and take a look at it.” If it is going to come about, and it seems likely that it might be the case regardless of what we do here, then we can say that “yes” in 1999, in this Legislature, we did have Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 before us, and we voted against nuclear waste. Then, all of a sudden, one day the trucks start rolling down the road, as did that train that came through Reno, and nobody would be saying a word then. Thank you.
Senator Shaffer:
Thank you, Madam President. I want to say that I am a member of the High Level Nuclear Waste Committee and had the opportunity to visit decommissioned nuclear power plants in the East and actually stood by the side of these pools. I’m not opposed to this resolution. I think we should go further than this. We are whining about something, but we are not trying to offer some solution to the problem. I believe we have a solution being developed in our own university system, right here in Nevada. If it were properly funded, I think the problem would have been addressed by now. There is not proper funding, and I will address that. I was also invited to testify before the subcommittee meeting in Washington, D.C., this Wednesday. I told them that I would be forwarding a letter explaining my position on this entire issue. But I do believe, and agreeing with my colleague Senator James, that if we do get into the recycling, which is what the university is working on, that we need to keep these spent fuel rods right where they are because they can be recycled, run through the process again and the outcome is totally neutral of radiation. There is no radiation left the second time around. Because of the deregulation in the power industry, it is very important that we look for a clean source of fuel. We are not going to get it this way, but if we do recycle, we are eliminating the radiation problem; we are eliminating the transportation and storage problem, and everyone is coming out with a win, win situation. I will be supporting and voting for this resolution only because I don’t think they should be trying to ship and store the waste in Nevada in any way shape or form. We should follow our own university’s ideas and get behind these people who are trying to create a solution and not whine about it session after session. Thank you.
Senator James:
Let me further assure the members of this body that the research I presented to you came not only from the Internet but also from the petition to Secretary Richardson from our Congressional Delegation to disqualify the site. They also come from the studies I cited. All of the information given you, both from my remarks and in the resolution itself, is accurate and reliable. Further let me tell you, that the reason this is being brought forward at this time is because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is going to have its only hearing in the House now. That is very unfortunate. This is a major shift in policy by Congress in that this will mean doing interim storage. Interim storage not only means for a 100 year renewable license, but it obliterates all the suitability regulations that are currently on the books. That is the whole reason why we are studying Yucca Mountain. This is a very important thing. It is not a political purpose or only a re-affirmation of things done in the past. It is a reaction to what is currently happening in Congress. You can be assured that is the main reason this is being processed through here. These are factual things on which you can rely.
The remark was made that this resolution is essentially agreeing to the permanent repository. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one who votes for this or puts their name on it is agreeing to the permanent repository. The resolution was very carefully written to say that the interim storage is wrong and that taking away the suitability regulations is wrong. That is what it does. We are not saying that it is okay to bring the permanent repository to Yucca Mountain.
I urge you all to support this resolution.
Senator Jacobsen:
Thank you, Madam President. I realize that further comments are somewhat futile when you realize 18 Senators and 33 Assemblymen sponsored this resolution. It is like a coyote howling in the wind. I just want to indicate to you that sometimes you find yourself in a difficult situation. I have no qualifications in this area other than that I think I am older than anyone else in this body if that means anything. I do serve with my colleagues on the High Level Waste Interim Committee and have since its inception. Serving on the committee has been a very educational process. I have been to Yucca Mountain 14 times. I am interested in, for my own curiosity, nuclear energy and its useful purposes as well as its detrimental purposes.
I learned, over fifty years ago, how to deal with reality. I am sure that the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not ask for the nuclear bombs to fall on them, but they did. I think a Nuclear Waste Policy Act is a necessity whether we store the waste at Yucca Mountain, in Idaho or wherever. It is not only, as my colleague indicated, a national problem but also an international problem. It is worldwide. As already stated, 37 states now have nuclear power consisting of 137 plants. Close by is Rancho Seco near Sacramento. That plant operated for 10 years and was only shut down because the public did not want a nuke in their back yards. That very plant is still there today. Everything in it is still there. That is only a two hour drive from here.
My concern comes from being an old Navy salt. Most ships today, including aircraft carriers, are nuclear powered. If you don’t think we have a responsibility to those sailors, both men and women, you are not being realistic. I think that is part of our obligation. My colleagues and I had the opportunity to go on board the aircraft carrier George Washington off the coast of Virginia. There were 5000 sailors stationed on the carrier which was powered by two nuclear reactors. The ship had just returned from the Bosnia area and had completed their one millionth mile at sea. Would you believe it or not, they burned one semi-load of uranium pellets. In this room, you could probably put 10 loads or 20 tons of pellets. I asked the sailors on that ship if they were afraid. They assured me that they were not since they slept with it. I stood along side the reactor. We toured almost all of the storage sites in the United States funded by the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund. We were allowed to see anything that we wanted to see. We were at Three Mile Island and all of those places. We saw the storage areas at these facilities. I put my arms around one of the silos. It felt nice and warm, but I did not turn red or green or yellow.
I think this is a responsibility we have to accept whether we like it or not. My “no” vote is not going to indicate that I want to see the waste stored at Yucca Mountain. It is going to indicate that it is an international problem, and we have to deal with it in some manner. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President. I also stand in support of Senate Joint Resolution No. 4. I would like my comments to hold specifically to the area of the transportation issue. My colleagues and I who were here during the 1995 session, supported a resolution allowing for a study by the Nevada Department of Transportation to look at the corridor in and around the Hoover Dam, the Colorado River and the Southern Nevada community. I expressed at that time, and do again today, my great concern for those vehicles currently passing through Nevada hauling low level waste of all types. More importantly, our state has minimum inspections, minimum oversight and minimum control over what is entering our community. We cannot say that a specific truck cannot enter the State of Nevada without very specific cause. Our highway patrol currently performs inspections on a random basis. I must also say that I have minimum trust in the process. I believe that my constituents do also. Certainly, my colleague from North Las Vegas is entitled to his opinion. He certainly is an expert in the field. My constituents do not trust what is currently coming into our state and what will be coming into our state in the future. Thank you.
Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 4:
Yeas—19.
Nays—Jacobsen.
Not Voting —Neal.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Senator Raggio moved that all rules be suspended and that Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Madam President announced that if there were no objections, the Senate would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Senate in recess at 12:51 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 1:54 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 8, 1999
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day amended and on this day passed, as amended, Senate Joint Resolution No. 4, Amendment No. 10, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendment.
Susan Furlong Reil
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Consideration of Assembly Amendments
Senate Joint Resolution No. 4.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 10.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding the following assemblymen as joint sponsors: Assemblymen Arberry, Beers, Brower, Dini, Goldwater, Leslie, Marvel, Nolan and Parnell.
Senator James moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Joint Resolution No. 4.
Remarks by Senator James.
Motion carried.
Resolution ordered enrolled.
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Joint Resolution No. 4.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Neal, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Rasheed Malik.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Wednesday, February 10, 1999 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 1:56 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas