MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Transportation

 

Seventy-First Session

March 22, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Transportationwas called to order by Chairman William R. O'Donnell, at 2:10 p.m., on Thursday, March 22, 2001, in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei, Vice Chairman

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Terry Care

Senator Maggie Carlton

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst

Alice Nevin, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

Troy Wade, Chairman, Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation

Myrna T. Williams, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Clark County

Linda K. Sikkema, Program Principal, National Conference of State Legislatures

James B. Reed, Director, Transportation Program, National Conference of State Legislatures

J. Russell Dyer, Ph.D., Project Manager, Yucca Mountain Site, U.S. Department of Energy

Joseph D. Ziegler, General Engineer, Senior Technical Advisor for Site Recommendation, U.S. Department of Energy

Robert Halstead, High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Advisor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General

Lou deBottari, Concerned Citizen

John Hadder, Concerned Citizen

Robert B. Miller, Mayor, City of Ely

Doug Bierman, Lobbyist, Eureka County

Sally Devlin, Concerned Citizen

Bill Vasconi, Concerned Citizen

Stephen J. Cloobeck, Concerned Citizen

Judy Treichel, Concerned Citizen

Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen

Grant Hudlow, Concerned Citizen

Gary C. Vesperman, Concerned Citizen

Herbert Marks, Concerned Citizen

Kalynda Tilges, Concerned Citizen

Jessica Hodge, Concerned Citizen

Marjorie Detraz, Concerned Citizen

Shirley Swafford, Concerned Citizen

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 264.

 

SENATE BILL 264:  Provides for issuance of special license plates for support of preservation of history of atomic testing in Nevada. (BDR 43-317)

 

Senator Alice Costandina (Dina) Titus, Clark County Senatorial District No. 7:

As you will recall, last session we passed S.B. 371, sponsored by Senator Raggio (Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3) and myself, which allowed the Desert Research Institute to issue revenue bonds to pay for a new building on the University of Nevada, Las Vegas campus. 

 

SENATE BILL 371 OF THE SEVENTIETH SESSION:  Authorizes University and Community College System of Nevada to issue revenue bonds for Desert Research Institute building. (BDR S-1189)

 

Senator Titus:

This facility was leased to the Department of Energy (DOE) for a 20-year period to house the Nevada Test Site Research Center.  The center was designed to catalog and display test site artifacts and atomic-age exhibits.  It also included a storage and retrieval service for the 350,000 atomic documents in existence; it has a public meeting area, research area, and conference space. 

 

Since that bill was passed, a lot of progress has been made.  There has been a groundbreaking at the site in conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of President Truman’s decision to conduct atomic tests in Nevada, and the National Endowment for the Humanities sponsored a symposium, attended by scholars and museum experts from around the country, to discuss the design, content, and objective of the new research center.  The Smithsonian Institute has officially recognized the proposed museum which gives it immediate legitimacy and credibility and also gives it access to all the Cold War exhibits and artifacts currently being stored by the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.

 

Finally, private fundraising efforts have begun to augment public resources for operating this research center.  The purpose of S.B. 264 is to create a license plate commemorating the test site.  The primary objective is to aid in the critical fundraising efforts.  It is anticipated many people, especially in southern Nevada, will purchase the license plate because over the 50 years of the test site’s existence tens of thousands of people have been employed by various federal, state, and local agencies and contractors operating at the test site. 

 

Senator Titus:

As with all special plates, 250 have to be ordered before any can be produced.  The additional charges for the plates are standard. 

 

Many people would say it is unusual I would sponsor such a bill, because I have been a pretty harsh critic of first the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the DOE’s testing policy in Nevada.  I want to make it very clear, for the record, this plate is in no way meant as advocacy or glorification of testing itself.  Instead, it is recognition of a facility which has had a tremendous impact, not just on the history of Nevada or the United States, but indeed, the entire world. 

 

The critical role played by the test site in the Cold War needs to be documented, researched, and better understood.  The records of atomic victims need to be accessible, not locked away in some storehouse in Washington, D.C.  The story of the test site, with all of its elements, both good and bad, must be told.  Whether you support testing or not, you must recognize the value of having such a facility with records and artifacts available for scholars, journalists, history buffs, and victims.  Only by understanding the implications of American policy during this period in history, can we hope to avoid making the same mistakes and possibly ever needing such a program in the future.  Troy Wade will give you more details about the program.

 

Troy Wade, Chairman, Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation:

Thank you, Senator Titus, for your support of the museum and the license plate.  I am a 42-year resident of Las Vegas.  I have been associated with the test site since I began work there in April 1958.  Since I retired, I have continued to be associated with test site matters and am chairman of the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation, a nonprofit group formed to capture what is really a very unique piece of United States’ history and Nevada history. 

 

Over the past 50 years, the Nevada Test Site (NTS) actually became one of the main battlefields of the Cold War.  It is our intent, in the museum, to capture its significance in what we hope will be a world-class exhibit.  Its historical importance, I think, is evidenced by the interest of the Smithsonian Institute, which has granted our museum, officially known as the Nevada Atomic Testing History Institute, Smithsonian affiliate status.  It is the first time the Smithsonian has ever granted affiliate status to a museum not yet even under construction.  That is how interested they are in preserving a main piece of history of the Cold War.  I think you will be very proud of this museum when it opens in late 2002. 

 

Another thing we would like to do to recognize the importance of the NTS to the state and to the nation, and to recognize the tens of thousands of Nevadans who have worked at the test site over the years, is to make the commemorative license plate available to them.  I am here to support Senator Titus on S.B. 264 and to ask that the foundation and the State be authorized to negotiate an agreement to design, manufacture, and sell commemorative license plates identifying the NTS as a unique Nevada asset.

 

 Chairman O'Donnell:

I will close the hearing on Senate Bill 264 and open the hearing on Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) 4.  Senator Amodei will act as vice chairman, so I may testify in support of this bill.

 

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 4:  Urges Governor to designate alternative routes of transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. (BDR R-1185)

 

Senator Carlton:

I would like to make a statement.  I have always been totally committed to doing everything in my power to stop nuclear waste from coming across the borders of our state.  I signed on to S.J.R. 4 because of my strong commitment to protect the citizens of this state.  Now, with doubts raised as to the message it might be sending, I am requesting my name be removed as co-sponsor.  I am totally opposed to any measure which, in reality or through perception, could be interpreted as implied consent. 

 

Senator Care:

I am going to echo the comments of Senator Carlton.  I am making the same request for the same reasons.  The term, implied consent, has been bantered about quite a bit over this resolution in the past several days.  I read implied consent to mean you look at the totality of the circumstances between the parties.  You look at the totality of the circumstances and the dealings between the parties and in this case that would be Washington, D.C., and Nevada. 

 

I do not think the resolution gives implied consent; however, it is the lawyer talking and lawyers can disagree.  I have to remind myself, in the end, the public does not care what lawyers think or say about this resolution.  It is what the public thinks and believes.  Having said that, I am making the same request, to have my name stricken as a sponsor.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

I would like to present S.J.R. 4, which urges the Governor to designate alternative routes to avoid the southern Nevada metropolitan area, in the event nuclear waste is transported to Yucca Mountain.  The resolution also urges the United States Department of Energy (DOE) to build a railroad to Yucca Mountain which entirely avoids the southern Nevada metropolitan area.

 

The time for hysteria and political posturing is over.  We can no longer afford the misinformation and scare tactics used by some in order to further their agenda.  The facts are, Nevada is the only state designated to store the waste, if it is scientifically suitable, the only state.

 

How can we win this conflict?  We need to get 51 votes of support in the United States Senate and 218 votes in the House (United States House of Representatives) to change the federal law designating Nevada as the only site to be the home of nuclear waste.  Since I have been elected, no other state has been selected for the storage and no bill has been passed to keep the waste where it is stored today.  The reason is we do not have the votes.  Federal legislation is no different than our state legislation.  We all know how to count and if we do not have the votes on our bills, they will not pass.  The Nevada Congressional Delegation has made statements several times that they are fighting the nuclear waste repository.  Has the delegation ever introduced legislation to remove Nevada from the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (of 1987)?  Not once.  Have we articulated our position clearly enough to persuade any Senator or Congressman to change their attitude so that they will feel sorry for Nevada and select another state for waste disposal?  Not one.  I know of only four votes in Congress guaranteed to vote against the storage of nuclear waste in Nevada.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

We cannot win this conflict by scaring ourselves to death.  It will not make one bit of difference whether every single Nevadan is opposed to nuclear waste.  Scaring ourselves to death like the story of Henny Penny, advertising to others we are the most dangerous site in the country to visit, or saying this is implied consent, will not change one vote in Congress.

 

I have received several resolutions regarding the environmental impacts on Las Vegas because of the nuclear waste.  Let me caution this committee regarding using the most important industry in this state as a pawn or lever in this fight against the waste.  If we continue to say our economy will be adversely affected by the storage of this waste, we will reap the self-fulfilling prophecy we espouse.  Yes, we will be impacted; but to scare the potential tourists away who provide our jobs in the Las Vegas area would be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.

 

Yucca Mountain is approximately 25 miles away from California.  Have you ever asked yourself why California is not opposed to the storage of this waste?  Have there been any resolutions stating they were opposed to the storage of waste in Nevada?  Ask yourself.  Do you think Nevada would be so concerned if Yucca Mountain were located 25 miles inside the borders of California?  The answer is no; then ask yourself why.  It is all politics.

 

There are two camps out there.  One camp listens to polls saying 80 percent of the people of the state do not want the waste stored in their state.  The other camp listens to the polls saying 78 percent of the people do not want it here, but the same 78 percent believe it is going to be here anyway because we do not have the votes in Washington, and they want us to negotiate for benefits.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

If we ask for the rail line and the shipments to go around the city of Las Vegas, then we have won if we are designated as a repository.  If we ask for the rail line and the waste is not shipped to Yucca Mountain because we are technically or scientifically not suitable, we still have won because now we have a rail line we did not have to buy, changing the whole economics of the southwestern United States.

 

If we do not ask for a rail line around the city and the waste is shipped, then the waste will travel through our cities, our highways, our spaghetti bowl, and we will have lost.  If we do not ask for the rail line and no nuclear waste is shipped, then we have lost a railroad.  If we ask for the rail line, we cannot help but win; if we do not ask for the railway, we cannot help but lose.

 

You will hear this resolution is providing implied consent and I ask, “Consent to what?”  Consent to have the waste stored in Nevada?  Unless I am mistaken, we are the only state designated to receive the waste, unless, of course, they know of another state designated to accept the waste.  We can use the argument this will be implied consent to waste storage, but it will not change 1 vote in Congress.  We will still be designated as the only site to get the waste.

 

The Attorney General has stated, by this resolution, Nevada is indicating it is willing to accept the proposed nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, as long as the transportation of the radioactive waste avoids Las Vegas and is accomplished by rail.  My comments would be:  What message would you like us to send to Washington, D.C.?  Would you prefer to send the message it is perfectly all right to ship the deadly nuclear waste over our highways through southern Nevada?  Do you really want truck after truckload with this hazardous cargo to be stuck in traffic on the spaghetti bowl in Las Vegas?  That will be the situation, if we do not recognize the real and terrible threat this state faces if we do not immediately make every effort to prevent the shipment of nuclear waste on our highways and streets in the Las Vegas Valley.  Anything less would be irresponsible and a dereliction of our duty as public servants to protect the health and safety of our citizens.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

If we do not ask, soon, for a rail line around the city, then we will not have the time to acquire the rights-of-way, do the design, and perform the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in order to build it for the first shipment.  If we do not build the rail line around the city, then those who oppose this measure must take the responsibility for this waste being transported over our highways.

 

It would be far easier for me to sit back and watch the nuclear debate and do nothing about the transportation of nuclear waste.  By the time the first shipment of waste is made, whether by truck or rail, none of us senators will be here because of term limits.  It would be so easy to go along with the popular majority and say, me too.  But when the first shipments pass our highways, the voters will ask:  Why was something not done and why were we not protected?  They will ask why a rail line was not constructed around our city.  Yes, it would be easier for us, now; but in the long term, we will be the ones deserving the shame.

 

The opposition will try to lay blame for this issue.  Unfortunately, I am not the enemy.  I did not vote to place nuclear waste in Nevada.  I am the voice of reason.  Someone asked me if I was willing to lie down in the middle of Interstate 15 in order to stop the shipments of nuclear waste.  First, I am not stupid.  Secondly, if I had to do so, the waste would already be on our highways in Las Vegas.  Thirdly, it still would be going right through the spaghetti bowl.  We could say, “The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!” as in Henny Penny, and feel good about scaring each other.  But it still will not change one vote in Congress.

 

Senator O’Donnell:

This bill will not go unnoticed by the voters of Nevada.  If we get this resolution passed, then at least we may get the waste off our highways and onto a rail line so it will not go through the city.  If the bill fails, we can only ask those who killed it to take responsibility for the pending outcome. 

 

It is not the intent of S.J.R. 4 to send a message to the federal government Nevada is caving in on the repository issue; however, it is the intent of the resolution to plan ahead to protect the most populated region in the state of Nevada, if the repository is forced upon us.

 

Although I will continue to pray no site in Nevada is chosen to store nuclear waste, I urge you and my fellow citizens to be pragmatic and require the best plans be made to deal with the transportation of this hazardous material.  Therefore, I urge you to support S.J.R. 4.

 

Senator Washington:

I applaud you for your foresight.  Nobody on this committee is advocating storage of nuclear waste, but it is in the best interest of the citizens of this state that we do think ahead and assume all possibilities.  This resolution is an insight to the possibility of having nuclear waste transported across this state.  I have this question.  If the rail is not built, you have indicated the nuclear waste would have to pass through the city.  What type of surface transportation for the highway could be constructed and built?  Would the highways be able to endure the weight and the overall widths?  Is it possible to construct such a vehicle to transport these canisters or cases to the repository?

 

Senator O’Donnell:

There will be people here to address the transportation issue in terms of what it would be like if we put the nuclear waste on a truck and brought it through Interstate 15 in Las Vegas.  I would defer to them to answer those questions.  However, the core of my testimony is in 1987, we lost the war as to whether there would be another state designated to be studied.  We were the only state in 1987, and since 1987, we have not been able to lobby . . . You would think we would be able to change some votes and say, “We are not interested in storing the waste in Nevada.  Can we pass a bill to store it in your state, or pass a bill to keep it on-site?”  You would think after 15 years we would be able to get somewhere, but the issue has not even been brought up in committee, let alone brought to the floor.  If we had the votes, we would have been out of the bill a long time ago.  Now it is getting closer and closer to coming here and you and I, again, will not be here.  None of the committee will be here.  We will be retired or doing some other job.  We will open up the newspaper one morning and we will read, “Nuclear Waste Shipments Happen Today.”  We will be the ones to look back and say, “What did we do to protect the citizens?”  Or, “Are we going to play this game again?”  The truth is, and it needs to be said, we are the only state to get the nuclear waste.  There will be a lot of legal wrangling, but my prediction is we will read those newspaper articles and those headlines.  My prediction is it will be here.  We need to plan now.  If we do not, we have no one to blame but ourselves.  This is going to take a lot of guts and fortitude, but we have to do the right thing, and if we do not, the citizens will pay. 

 

Senator Washington:

Has our congressional delegation had a chance to respond or see the resolution?

 

Senator O’Donnell:

No, they have not seen it.

 

Myrna T. Williams, Commissioner, Board of Commissioners, Clark County:

I have some ad lib remarks in response to your comments.  You have framed this in terms of personal agendas.  I can assure you there is no one in this room with a personal agenda. 

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I think my statement did not say the word “personal” agenda.  I will accept your comments if they are going to be true and factual.  If they are not true and factual, I am going to call you on them.

 

Ms. Williams:

I think your comments reflect you talked about politics and personal agendas.  I want to make it clear there is no one in this room with a personal or political agenda.  This is an issue that touches all of us, no matter our gender, ethnic backgrounds, race or political affiliation.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S.J.R. 4.  I have knowledge of nuclear waste as a former member of the Legislature, as a member of the high-level nuclear waste committee and as the Governor’s appointee to the Commission on Nuclear Projects.  I am also a commissioner and I have worked closely with the nuclear waste division.  All of this has reaffirmed the fact the potential danger of Yucca Mountain to the health, safety, quality of life of our citizens, families, children, guests, tourists, and our economy is real.  It is something we must consider very quickly.  I am particularly concerned about the transportation impact.  Transportation of nuclear waste impacts Clark County, but also Nevada’s rural areas.  It is troubling the DOE has not initiated a nationwide transportation planning effort, since a majority of the nation’s urban areas and populations could be negatively affected by this part of the program.  Yes, Senator, we have heard from many people of this state.

 

Senate Joint Resolution 4 should be defeated.  The message conveyed in the resolution is Yucca Mountain’s opening is inevitable.  This is simply not true.  The most significant events to test Yucca suitability as a permanent nuclear waste repository have not even been initiated yet.  Many years of data collection, review, and analysis must be completed before Yucca Mountain can be licensed as a permanent repository.  It is my understanding it would take about 20 years.  We should not think or give the false impression to others Yucca Mountain is a certainty, but that is the message of this resolution.  The poor timing of this resolution should cause us great concern.  It is premature to ask the Governor to designate routes when the site has not been selected.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

The resolution says “if the site is suitable” the Governor will designate the rail lines.

 

Ms. Williams:

The Governor already has the right to do that if it would occur, which we do not believe it will.  It would not be needed until well after 2010.  By naming routes now, S.J.R. 4 may communicate to Congress perhaps Nevada’s consistent opposition to a repository is unraveling.  This resolution is inaccurate and misleading.  The DOE does not have the capability to marshal resources to construct a rail line to convey nuclear waste anywhere.  Congress must appropriate funds for this task.  The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico is instructive in this regard.  The DOE promoted the use of rail transportation for shipments to WIPP.  This, like many other promises made by the DOE, did not happen.  Offering rail transportation as a solution also presupposes Yucca Mountain has been selected as a site.  Before the transportation issue can be adequately addressed, the DOE needs to do the hard work of completing a national transportation plan to accurately address the hazards, impacts, and risks.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Do you think it will happen?

 

Ms. Williams:

I do not think it will, but it is the DOE’s responsibility to do a plan using interstate highways and connecting routes which go from state to state. 

 

The battle is a long way from being over.  Mixed messages need to be avoided; S.J.R. 4 is premature.  Our biggest job as elected officials is to ensure we stand as one to protect our citizens, community, and economy from this dangerous project.  Thank you for the opportunity to provide my concerns.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I think you have adequately made my case for protecting the citizens and I appreciate it.

 

Ms. Williams:

I do not agree with you.  I think I have refuted your case completely.  I think your ideas, while they may have merit, are not going to happen.  There will be no rail line for anybody; there was no rail line for New Mexico.  California is a producer of nuclear waste and even in California they stopped construction of nuclear plants because they realized what was happening.  They have already shipped low-level nuclear waste through the spaghetti bowl eight times. 

 

Linda K. Sikkema, Program Principal, National Conference of State Legislatures:

I am happy to provide a brief description of the evolution of the nation’s efforts to resolve radioactive waste management issues from the 1950s to the 1990s. 

 

In the mid 1950s, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) considered the disposal of defense-related, high-level radioactive waste and recommended salt as a potentially suitable host rock for geologic disposal.  In 1957, NAS concluded that radioactive waste could be disposed of safely in a variety of geologic media within the United States.  Preliminary nation-wide screening for suitable repository sites began and resulted in the identification of four large, potentially suitable regions with underlying rock salt.  They were the salt domes of the gulf coastal plain (Texas Coastal Plain) in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; bedded salt in the Paradox Basin of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico; bedded salt in the Permian Basin of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico; bedded salt in the Michigan and Appalachian Basins of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.  In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission proposed the salt deposits near Lyon, Kansas, for a permanent repository.  This proposal was abandoned 2 years later for political and technical reasons. 

 

Following the failure of the Lyon proposal, the Energy Research and Development Administration proposed the development of a retrievable surface storage facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington.  However, this proposal was also dropped amid concerns it would defer geologic disposal efforts.  In 1977, the National Waste Terminal Storage Program was initiated to find suitable repository sites and to develop the technology necessary for repository licensing, construction, operation, and closure. 

 

The site screening process was based on a two-fold approach.  The first approach focused on a survey of areas with underlying salt.  The second focused on federal lands where radioactive materials were already present.  Site screening was initiated at both the Hanford site and the Nevada test site.  In 1978, President Carter initiated an inter-agency review group to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear waste policy.  In 1979, this group recommended proceeding with geologic disposal and also recommended the United States consider alternative host rocks for disposal.  In response, a national survey of crystalline rock granite was undertaken and the survey identified near-surface and exposed crystalline rock formations in 17 states. 

 

Ms. Sikkema:

In 1975, President Ford decided to forego reprocessing of commercial spent fuel in favor of the once-through cycle.  In 1977, he also decided reprocessing should be indefinitely deferred to address urgent concerns about global nuclear proliferation.  In 1980, the DOE issued a final environmental impact statement for the management of commercially generated radioactive waste, and a record of decision, which officially selected mine geologic repositories as the preferred means for the disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel. 

 

In 1981, President Reagan withdrew the ban on reprocessing and President Carter’s proposal.  In 1981, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was introduced and in 1983, it was signed.  It created the office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and authorized the waste management system that will permanently isolate spent fuel. 

 

I will continue with a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C.  Original is on file in the Research Library.).   

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

When Nevada gives the notice of disapproval, Congress has 90 days to institute a resolution to be passed by both houses in Congress and signed by the President. 

 

James B. Reed, Director, Transportation Program, National conference of State Legislatures:

I will continue the power point presentation by discussing transportation regulations (page 29, Exhibit C).

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Do you know if any funds were allocated for the beltway because of the transportation of nuclear waste?

 

Mr. Reed:

I am not sure, but my impression is no, not for that highway. 

 

Senator Washington:

How much was left over from the unspent funds and is it still accumulating?  Also, does the state have to request those funds?

 

Ms. Sikkema:

About $9.9 billion was left and it is still accumulating.  Congress has to appropriate funds for the program.  Nuclear waste funds go to fund the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which funds the Yucca Mountain project; but it is not all funds from the nuclear waste fund. 

 

J. Russell Dyer, Ph.D., Project Manager, Yucca Mountain Site, U.S. Department of Energy:

I am the DOE’s Yucca Mountain Project Manager.  With me today are members of my staff, Allen Benson, Joe Ziegler and Pete Bolton.  I have brought an exhibit, “The State Role in Spent Fuel Transportation Safety:  Year 2000 Update” (Exhibit D.  Original is on file in the Research Library.).  I will also submit my prepared testimony for the record (Exhibit E).  My testimony also includes a series of maps showing the location of nuclear materials destined for geologic disposal (Exhibit F).

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I understand you are willing to work with Nevada to designate the routes.  Are you willing to pay for a rail line around our metropolitan area if we are designated as the Yucca Mountain site or designated as suitable?

 

Dr. Dyer:

If Yucca Mountain is designated for development as a repository, our current planning assumes the DOE would have to pay for development of a transportation program; if a rail option were the option chosen, our assumption would be it would be our responsibility.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

For the record, are you fully aware that in no way do we mean S.J.R. 4 is giving implied consent for the aspects of Yucca Mountain? 

 

Dr. Dyer:

Yes, we are willing to talk with the state any time.

 

Senator Washington:

For the record, it is the Governor’s responsibility and he has the authorization to determine what type of routes may be selected.

 

Dr. Dyer:

Under current U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, the governor has the authority to designate preferred highway routes.

 

Joseph D. Ziegler, General Engineer, Senior Technical Advisor for Site Recommendation, U.S. Department of Energy:

The governor has the authority to designate alternate preferred routes.  There are no such regulations associated with rail routing, but state and local government preferences would be highly considered.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

If we do not designate a rail line, is your alternative to bring the waste through the Las Vegas area by truck?

 

Dr. Dyer:

Not necessarily, the transportation decisions lie ahead of us and are conditioned on a recommendation by the President to go ahead with a repository system.  It is premature to say, it is a decision that would come after a site recommendation decision.

 

Senator Washington:

It is our understanding the federal government would continue to pay those life cycles for the maintenance and operation of those routes.

 

Dr. Dyer:

That is correct, construction, operation, and maintenance costs for those systems for the duration of the transportation campaign.

 

Robert Halstead, High-Level Radioactive Waste Transportation Advisor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor:

In the interest of time, I am submitting my full, prepared testimony for the record (Exhibit G).  I will present a shorter version, which will allow more time for questions.  I have asked Robert Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, to join me in the event you have questions about state policies. 

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Are there any routes that are any good whatsoever?  What do you think we should do, if we are going to be designated as suitable, to protect the citizens in our area?

 

Mr. Halstead:

There are not any routes a transportation planner would consider good routes.  The position we have taken for the short-term is we should wait for the DOE’s response to the comments we gave them on their draft EIS.  We addressed both the highway and the rail issues. 

 

Under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) regulations for this project, the department has three obligations, only one of which its planners have met.  They have designated a preferred highway route.  We do not agree with it, but it was something they were required to do.  They did not set forth the most likely mode of shipments.  We believe it is their obligation to tell us which of the five rail routes, in their opinion, meets the requirements for preparing the draft EIS.  We were hoping to get a response from them by summer of this year, then we would evaluate our litigation options.  With respect to the bill, which raises many important questions, we would like to wait and see how the DOE responds to the questions we raised on the draft EIS.  Perhaps we have missed something.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I have seen nothing but delay, delay, delay . . . My opinion is you will continue to delay until it is too late, hoping, waiting, and praying for some kind of miracle to happen so it will not come here.  I am afraid it is going to be too late.  How long have you worked on this issue?  You are still going to wait for answers.  Could there be an answer now?

 

Mr. Halstead:

I have worked on these issues for 12 years.  I believe we have a surprisingly large number of legal rights under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as Amended, under NEPA, and under the U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines.  I would turn your argument around.  The agency behind schedule is the DOE.  They have been studying rail routes for almost 20 years.  I find it extraordinary they would issue a draft EIS that did not tell us which of the five routes was preferred.  I would like to engage them in a discussion of the merits and demerits of these routes; but, until they respond to us, we will sacrifice our legal rights if we go ahead with some other approach.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Are you saying if we correspond with them, we might sacrifice our legal rights?

 

Mr. Halstead:

I think passage of the bill would probably be interpreted as shifting the burden for selection of the routes from the DOE to the state of Nevada.  I think we need to be very careful.

 

Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Agency for Nuclear Projects, Office of the Governor:

As you heard previously, the Governor has the authority to designate routes.  Still, routing decisions are a long way off, perhaps 8 or 10 years away.  Moreover, you just heard from the DOE if we get to the point the site has been selected and legal objections have not materialized, we will have the opportunity to work with them on finding the transportation routes.  I think, generally, we believe we have been doing the right thing.  We have studied these routes, we have looked at the DOE’s analysis, we talked with them about their routes, and we know we have the authority, subject to DOT regulations.  We believe this is premature.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

You say it is premature, yet people in Las Vegas need to be protected.  What if Yucca Mountain is designated as suitable?  What if Congress overrides our notice of disapproval?  What if the President signs the bill and what if the nuclear waste shipments start?  Should we build a rail line around the city?  I need a yes or no answer.

 

Mr. Loux:

I am not willing to suggest, somehow, residents in the rural part of the state deserve less protection than the citizens in southern Nevada.  I think we are a long way from understanding these questions.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

You are saying you would rather have the waste go on the roadway in the major metropolitan areas versus the less populated areas.

 

Mr. Loux:

I did not say either of those things.  I am suggesting your bill has the effect of saying we would rather see waste out in the rural areas, and have those folks exposed, as opposed to the people of Las Vegas. 

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Is that not the same attitude Congress had with Nevada?  The reason why we were selected is because we are rural, compared to the rest of the nation.  I am protecting the district with the most people in it.

 

Mr. Loux:

I do not think anyone is questioning your motives in protecting citizens.  What we are saying is we do not have to be engaged in this process at this juncture.  There is ample opportunity to do all of these things in future, when and if we know the site is actually selected.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Mr. Loux, you will not be here when that decision is made and neither will I.  You can make those statements which are really easy for you to make, but it does not do what is right.  What is right is to talk to the federal government and protect our citizens.  You do not want a rail line around our city and you do not want it to go through rural Nevada either, because, if it goes through rural Nevada, it takes away one of your levers or bargaining chips.  It is the same kind of argument you used around the country when you sent out the video you were not supposed to send.  I am disillusioned and frustrated. 

 

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director, Planning Division, Nevada Department of Transportation:

We were asked to provide a summary of the Nevada Department of Transportation’s (NDOT) activities to date relative to the Yucca Mountain proposed repository.  I have provided copies of my prepared remarks (Exhibit H), copies of the maps are on display (Exhibit I), and “Nuclear Materials Transportation Investigation Phase 1” (Exhibit J).  

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

How long have you been working on this?  Is nuclear waste transported to our cities presently?  Do you know how often and are there any high-level nuclear waste shipments going through our cities?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

The Planning Division has been conducting work in relation to other state agencies and federal agencies since 1985.  Yes, nuclear waste is transported through our cities.  I do not know how many each month.  I am not aware of any high-level nuclear shipments, but waste transportation has been an ongoing activity to Area 5 and the Nevada Test Site.  Some of those shipments have come from Colorado and other DOE facilities throughout the nation.  It is my understanding some of the shipments have gone through metropolitan Las Vegas.  That information was provided at the last transportation protocol working meeting.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Is the federal government required to notify you about nuclear waste shipments?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

No, not for low-level shipments, but notification is required for shipments of high-level nuclear waste.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Is any waste stored from nuclear submarine and nuclear aircraft carriers in Nevada?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

I believe there has been a shipment of those materials through Nevada.  I do not know if there is any storage of such material, currently.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Are we going to ship any materials from Nevada to another state?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

Yes, the waste isolation product plant shipments go from the Nevada Test Site to New Mexico.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

So, we are going to be shipping nuclear waste to another state, not keeping it here in our own state.  Did we generate that waste?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

Yes, we are shipping waste to another state, but we did not generate the waste.  Some of it came from other DOE facilities and some from the NTS where it is in temporary storage right now, awaiting final disposition to New Mexico.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Have there been any accidents on the freeways regarding the transportation of the nuclear waste?

 

Mr. Fronapfel:

I am not aware of any accidents.

 

Drennan A. Clark, Solicitor General, Litigation Division, Office of the Attorney General:

Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, has prepared remarks to distribute to the committee (Exhibit K) and I will read those remarks today.  We oppose this resolution.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

As an attorney, when you read the resolution, did you see anything to indicate if we transport the nuclear waste by rail, we will accept the waste?

 

Mr. Clark:

It is the implication of the resolution. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Where does it say that?

 

Mr. Clark:

It says if we are going to have the decision made that the repository is selected for Yucca Mountain, then we want it by rail or we want it transported outside Clark County.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

The resolution says if we are designated.  You are saying if there is a radiological disaster, it would be better if it was in the populated areas, rather than in the rural areas.

 

Mr. Clark:

No, I am not saying that at all.  I am saying the rural areas are less able to respond than any of the heavily populated areas, because they do not have the disaster response teams which are already in existence in some of the major counties like Washoe and Clark.  I am not saying I would rather have it go anywhere.  I would rather have it not be in Nevada and not have any Nevada team have to try to respond.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Most of us feel the same way you do.  We do not want nuclear waste here.  What I am trying to do is circumvent it, in the case we are selected, to be the route the Governor selects, not just a highway or a designated highway interstate route, but a designated rail line around our city.  That is what I want to designate and what I am willing to ask for.

 

Mr. Clark:

The point is, you do not have to ask for it now.  You can ask for it after the decision is made, because you will have 10 to 20 years before the first shipment will occur after the decision is made, assuming it is made.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Do you think it will be?

 

Mr. Clark:

I do not think so, personally.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

How many votes did you get changed in Congress to take Nevada out of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as Amended from 1987?

 

Mr. Clark:

I did not get any, but 43 states will have nuclear waste transported through their boundaries to Yucca Mountain; then I think you will have 86 Senators.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

You are saying we are going to tell the people in 43 other states the transportation of nuclear waste is highly dangerous and the probability of accidents could occur; therefore, their Senator should choose another state.  Or, you want them to keep it because it is so dangerous; keep it in the same state where it is.  They will agree to that.

 

Mr. Clark:

Until the citizens of those other states find out the potential damage they could face, those Senators are not going to act at all.  Perhaps they will, once their constituents begin telling them they oppose this transportation.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Will they keep it in the 35 states that already have nuclear reactors?  That will cost the ratepayer more money, driving up the cost of electricity.  It is my prediction they will vote to put it here at Yucca Mountain.

 

Mr. Clark:

I do not necessarily agree.  Let me suggest we are looking at a 10- to 20-year process with $9.6 billion available.  I believe scientists will figure out a way to neutralize the nuclear waste within 20 years.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

That is why they are building a repository, so they can go retrieve it when they figure it out.

 

Mr. Clark:

Once it is in a repository, we both know it will never be retrieved. 

 

Lou deBottari, Concerned Citizen:

I will submit my written testimony for the record (Exhibit L).

 

John Hadder, Concerned Citizen:

I represent Citizen Alert.  I will testify in opposition of S.J.R. 4, and submit my testimony for the record (Exhibit M). 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Mr. Loux, out of all the cases in court that have been adjudicated in finality, how many have we won?

 

Mr. Loux:

We have won one case on the ability to spend money the way we want to from the federal government’s oversight funds.  We have filed six or seven cases.

 

Robert B. Miller, Mayor, City of Ely:

I have a letter to submit for the record (Exhibit N).  Also, for the record, it is not implied consent.  We totally support our federal legislation efforts, and efforts of the Governor and the Legislature to stop nuclear waste.  But low-level nuclear waste is going through our community right now, through the middle of town.  This letter is to request that the Nevada Northern Railroad be looked at as a way to transport the nuclear waste.  Again, this is not an endorsement or an implied endorsement; but I am speaking in favor of the resolution because I think it is the right thing to do.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If we move the waste on trucks, the highways are just as rural as the railroad; but to me, a railroad would be safer than a highway. 

 

Doug Bierman, Lobbyist, Eureka County:

I am here on behalf of Eureka County and would like to offer the following in its behalf:  Eureka County is one of the 10 counties designated by the Secretary of Energy as affected by the Yucca Mountain repository system.  The draft EIS identifies a potential rail corridor through Eureka County to the Yucca Mountain site.  The alignment of the potential rail corridor through Eureka County traverses prime agricultural land immediately adjacent to the community of Crescent Valley.

 

Agriculture is an important component of the economy of Eureka County, providing stable employment and consistent tax revenues.  Apart from mining, agriculture represents nearly 14 percent of the jobs in the county.  The transportation of radioactive waste through Eureka County may stigmatize agricultural commodities produced in the area; that is, alfalfa hay and beef production.  Stigma-induced reduction in the demand for Eureka County agricultural commodities would adversely impact the local economic and fiscal base.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

You are saying if the rail line goes through Eureka County, the county’s agricultural products will be stigmatized?

 

Mr. Bierman:

The stigma is attached to nuclear shipments going through any particular area, such as Clark County.  The stigma will be carried in people’s minds. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If the doctor said you have prostate cancer and the only known cure is a radium implant in your body, what are you going to tell them?

 

Mr. Bierman:

I do not think I would, but that is my personal opinion.  Options for Eureka County to diversify its economy to overcome adverse impacts to agriculture are very limited because of the lack of private land and geographic remoteness.  Eureka County cannot support S.J.R. 4, because it appears to encourage the transportation of radioactive waste through the rural areas of Nevada.  If the committee elects to pass the resolution, Eureka County would request the bill be amended to discourage transportation through key agriculture areas of rural Nevada.  We have attached some suggested wording for an amendment  (Exhibit O).

 

Sally Devlin, Concerned Citizen:

I am here to object to S.J.R. 4 for many reasons.  Dr. Dyer and I sat at a review meeting over 8 years ago with the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.  For all of us who have read every relevant EIS, there are always disclaimers.  They have no transportation plan.  They have no canister plan. 

 

I do not hear you mentioning, and it is very important for the public to know, of the Price Anderson congressional bill (Price Anderson Act of 1957, amended in 1988).  If there is a nuclear accident, it will pay $5.4 billion.  Does that tell you something about the devastation?  I live in Pahrump, in the shadow of Yucca Mountain, and the NTS.  I want to remind the committee the 1500 to 1600 transuranic (high-level radioactivity) waste canisters sitting at the NTS for years are going to be shipped out in their big canisters.  This shipment will go from Mercury down Interstate 95 to Highway 372, to Highway 127, up the hill to Baker (California), on to Barstow (California), and down to U.S. 40. 

 

In order to avoid Las Vegas, the chosen route will be an extra 400 miles.  It is very interesting to me, because I have studied this since the beginning of the transportation studies.  We are paying to protect Las Vegas from high-level waste.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If the waste is coming here, how do you think it should be shipped?  By truck or rail?

 

Ms. Devlin:

We are dealing with federal agencies.  These people cannot get together after all these years with the EIS.  It has cost, probably, $20 million for these huge volumes of nothing, as far as I am concerned, because they write 200 pages about transportation and then they disclaim everything they have said. 

 

To answer your question, railroad cars will not work in Nevada.  I would not like the waste shipped at all.  In 1992 and 1993, the Pahrump rail route would have cost $1.8 billion.  What do you think it would cost today?  Do we taxpayers want to pay that much money?  It only takes a 36-pound bazooka to shoot one of the canisters and you have radiation in the air.  I did a report for the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on the uranium and plutonium in Lake Mead.  That stuff lasts 25 to 45 million years. 

 

I am very much against this bill because you are saying, “Protect the people of Las Vegas.”  We in the rural areas have not been consulted and do not like being third class citizens.

 

Bill Vasconi, Concerned Citizen:

I am a construction worker and have lived in this state since 1964.  I am on the Board of Directors at the Nevada Test Site Historical Foundation.  I support S.B. 264.  There have been 52 fatalities of construction workers at the NTS over a 50-year period.  The test site has paid for a lot of college educations and homes.  I would like to see those folks get the license plate. 

 

I was part of the NTS employee transition committee on downsizing.  We are down to about 2200 people.  I was the first chairman for the NTS site-specific advisory board on environmental restoration and waste management, and co-chair of the study committee of benefits, if the nuclear waste does come here. 

 

There are many Nevadans who do not consider themselves a part of this nation’s nuclear issues and concerns.  But realistically we all know we may well be the solution for many generations of Americans to come.  Nevadans say this is not a state problem because we are not going to take the waste.  They do not recognize the national problem, either.  Few recognize the fact we have 65 nuclear submarines in the ocean and 5 under construction.  We have 9 atomic aircraft carriers and 1 under construction; we have 82 universities and medical facilities utilizing a reactor of sorts, so that is a lot of spent fuel rods.

 

Mr. Vasconi:

Here in Clark County, I attend a lot of meetings.  I talk with a lot of folks and am associated with several organizations.  Transportation is definitely a concern.  Fifty percent of the people of Las Vegas have been here less than 10 years.  We have surveys showing folks are worried about crime, roads, schools, water, and about number 13 or 14 on the list, they are worried about Yucca Mountain.  The vast majority of Nevadans do not want Yucca Mountain; but the majority think it is going to come, whether we want it or not, because of the government.  The vast majority want to know about the benefits, entitlements, and equity issues.  They want to know about health and safety and they want to know about transportation.  They want to know about sound science, health and safety standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), environmental safeguards, project oversight with monitoring and retrievability, review and modification of these facilities.  Folks want to blame everything on government. 

 

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is independent of any government identity.  The National Academy of Science is independent of any national identity and they are not finding any showstoppers with Yucca Mountain.  Let science decide the final resolve, and it is my understanding, the site recommendation will go to the President.  The studies are nearly complete. 

 

Politics has always been involved and Nevada is real good at politics.  Nevada’s approach in dealing with Yucca Mountain has not been realistic or responsible.  It has been politically based and motivated, which does not work well with a scientific project.  We do not have good representation from government at meetings.  Nevada’s leaders need to reexamine their approach.  The opportunity to make the best out of this situation will soon be history.  It is unfortunate our elected officials have not done anything to protect Nevadans, including securing support for the safest transportation routes and securing funding for emergency management programs throughout the state. 

 

Thirteen of 21 senators and 26 out of 42 assemblymen are from Clark County.  The gaming industry controls some of our representatives and senators.  They will take produce from California and take the money out of Californians’ wallets.  There are 34 states with nuclear power that generates electricity for jobs, produces steel and produces cars.  We do not want their waste.  People are worried about transportation of nuclear waste and about terrorists attacking the trucks. 

 

In conclusion, I believe that in several hundred years, if this is consolidated, there will be a better answer.  I also believe it is a renewable energy resource and we must stress the fact that it can be removed.  I do not believe coal and oil will last forever.  Concluding Yucca Mountain is a repository provides a unique opportunity for Nevada to negotiate equity benefits for the people of Nevada.  Let us maximize those benefits to be realized by the state, counties, and communities, as a result of the scientific and technological expertise that has been developed over the last 5 decades.  We talk about transportation but I want the senators to know others are asking for increased funding for local impact and environmental studies, to include credible oversight funding. 

 

Lastly, we are talking railroads.  The Carlin route does one really good thing.  After the waste is hauled, it opens up the center of our state for economic development.  The railroad will still be there after the waste is hauled, and the federal government will have paid for it.  I say let us keep it out of the greater Las Vegas area.  I favor a north and south rail line.  A railroad takes time to build and the money is there, all we have to do is get out and designate it.

 

Stephen J. Cloobeck, Concerned Citizen:

I am concerned the Nevada congressional delegation did not have any input on this resolution.  I am also concerned the constituents who make up the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the Las Vegas Visitor and Convention Authority, and the Nevada Resort Association did not vocalize opposition to any resolutions on Yucca Mountain.  I am alarmed that in 1997 and 2000, the United States House of Representatives had in excess of 150 members voting in opposition to those nuclear measures.  There are more newly elected congressional officials today who could perhaps be persuaded to vote in opposition to nuclear resolutions on the house floor. 

 

I ask you to use your time and thoughts to change the debate.  This is a global problem, not just a Nevada issue or national issue, but an international issue.  We need to pool our financial resources and brainpower to solve the problem.  I am assuming you have seen the site.  I was amazed this site has the capacity for eight times the amount of nuclear waste, if licensing approvals would allow it to handle that capacity.  I ask you to think about what you are doing here today because it is the wrong message.  I would ask you to put off this debate until some time in the future.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If you had a choice which route would you take?  Would you rather have the railroad around the city or haul the material through the spaghetti bowl?  Do you think it is going to come here?

 

Mr. Cloobeck:

I do not believe it will come here.  Do you know of any community in this country where a community has argued vehemently against any federal project and the federal government has forced it upon them? 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

The answer is yes, the state of New Mexico.  Mr. Loux, is that not true?

 

Mr. Loux:

It is not true.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Have we asked for a lot of benefits for our state?  Have we gotten anything? 

 

Mr. Loux:

New Mexico did not get what they asked for in terms of benefits.  We have not asked for any benefits, nor received any benefits.

 

Mr. Cloobeck:

Perhaps you should talk to U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), who was the Attorney General at that time.  He would tell you it was the biggest mistake he ever made.  Let us all do the research and understand the facts.  I ask you to consider that today.

 

Judy Treichel, Concerned Citizen:

I am the executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force.  Last week, I attended a meeting of national public interest groups in Washington, D.C.  There were 10 groups in attendance and 5 who were not there, but wanted to know what happened so they could join in the efforts.  All of these groups, representing thousands of members across the country, have taken on the Yucca Mountain project and are working in opposition to this project.  The big issue for them is transportation.  Regarding the votes needed in Congress to make Nevada win, several years ago there were not enough votes to sustain a presidential veto; but the number of votes has been going up and there is renewed interest, partly due to the EIS.  The DOE held hearings in various cities.  In St. Louis, the Missouri Governor and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis opposed the project because of transportation issues and threats to their citizens. 

 

We have a state law in Nevada prohibiting the storage or disposal of high-level nuclear waste.  This bill, although it does not approve the facility, does allow negotiating which would have the intent of breaking the law.  If the Las Vegas people are not victims, it means other Nevadans become victims.  To have to delegate routes, I would guess, would make the Governor nervous.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If we ran for office and said we do not want to make the tough decisions, only the easy ones, what kind of politicians would we be?

 

Ms. Treichel:

You have to make decisions that take courage, but this is a decision you should not make.  If you are supporting Nevadans, you support all Nevadans.  Regarding New Mexico and promised benefits, the DOE has promised many dollars for transportation and transportation-related projects.  They decided to hold those up because some of the state agencies were complaining about things happening with the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP).  Clark County did a study on WIPP and what was promised, and one of the conclusions was the DOE has a consistent track record of not living up to its agreements with state and local governments, even court-ordered written agreements. 

 

The Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force and I personally oppose this bill.  It signals a willingness to make a deal and we cannot force the DOE to keep any promises they make.  If this thing is inevitable, and the DOE is going to do anything it wants to and we are powerless to stop them, I do not know what their incentive would be for going ahead with an expensive project like a railroad when they do not even know if they have a repository site.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If you had to choose, would you want it by rail or by truck?  Some of us believe if we do not act now, we will not have a railroad, once that decision is made and we lose all the court cases.

 

Ms. Treichel:

I am not going to let either one go by my house carrying that stuff.  I refuse to answer your question.

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

Mr. McGowan, I have heard you talk about this issue before.  It is going to be the same thing again?

 

Tom McGowan, Concerned Citizen:

When you talk about public comment, if you intend to sensor my comments, I will file a complaint immediately.  You made an accusation and you are preventing me from providing public comment so what I will do is to declare your meeting disorderly, unlawful, and non-binding.  You are in violation of the Nevada open meeting law and I will insist that the Attorney General and the Nevada Legislature hold you and your committee responsible, accountable, and liable. 

 

Grant Hudlow, Concerned Citizen:

I am a chemical engineer with nuclear injury experience and training.  Thank you for dealing with this issue.  I support you in your attempt to stop the nuclear waste completely.  We depend on you to figure out what is needed and when on this issue.  I have some new information for your consideration.  I noticed the canister the DOE will ship over the highways has a five-pound pressure seal on it.  It has molten lead inside and how much of a bump would it take to break open a five-pound pressure seal (5 pounds per square inch)?  How could this happen?  Various people have told me since the DOE engineers and scientists cannot understand the basics of metallurgy, nuclear physics, and containment engineering, there is no room to recommend competent solutions to what are difficult problems.  When you are dealing with the DOE, you are not dealing with people who are capable of handling these kinds of tough problems.  Few of the public and few of those in Congress have the education to understand these technical principles. 

 

Who is supervising the DOE?  The DOE and the nuclear industry fail to understand the laws of politics do not change the laws of physics.  We violate these technical laws at our peril.  People talk about an accident.  What would it look like?  How many people know what happens when you have an explosion of the magnitude of molten lead breaking out through a seal; it is very similar to a rocket launch attack. 

 

Also, there will be an official announcement in 5 or 6 weeks that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is issuing a license for a transportation operation.  This is a private business and, basically, the next step is to take the nuclear waste away from the DOE and transmute it into a trillion dollars worth of electricity and get on with our business, instead of this nonsense.

 

Gary C. Vesperman, Concerned Citizen:

I oppose this resolution for two reasons.  Transmuting radioactive waste, so it is no longer radioactive, has been demonstrated.  This information was on the Internet.  Since there is a development underway to transmute radioactive materials commercially, we are really wasting our time with this discussion, because there will not be any radioactive waste to transport. 

 

Herbert Marks, Concerned Citizen:

I am here to comment in opposition to S.J.R. 4.  I support the remarks by Myrna Williams, Robert Halstead, and the testimony from Attorney General Del Papa.  I have spent some time trying to understand this issue.  On the issue of stigma, it is an important aspect of the Yucca Mountain issue because of the uniqueness of radioactive nuclear waste and its 250,000-year life span.  The fears generated in the minds of people regarding nuclear waste carries a stigma that it presents the greatest possible danger to southern Nevada.  When the site was designated for study in 1987, the southern Nevada region carried a fragmentary urban characteristic, the wider area was rural.  It would be hard, given the development over the past 15 years, to characterize this region as anything less than a primary urban metropolis. 

 

The uniqueness of the area is it is a premier world tourist magnet and destination.  This makes it especially sensitive and vulnerable to the stigma issue because the stigma would affect convention decisions, tourist decisions, and, possibly, ratings bureaus, ratings on corporate and public finance notes and bonds.  My view is Yucca Mountain constitutes the greatest possible danger of degrading this region to second-class status, from which there will be no remediation because there is no way you can undo the fears and stigma created by the radioactive material.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Do you know where stigma comes from?  A stigma is ignorance of the unknown.

 

Mr. Marks:

Stigma has to do with the negative characteristics associated with radioactive nuclear waste.  It has been built into the consciousness of people since the introduction of the atomic bomb.  Stigma is a result of the images created by the bombardment of the media as it comes to deal with this issue.  We compete with cities like San Diego and San Francisco, and the negative aspects could devalue the fastest-growing region over the past 15 years.  The failure of the DOE to account for the changes in the region over the years, their failure to study the changes of population growth, resort growth, and the nature of the expansion of resort building, totally changes the issue from what it was in 1987.  This would represent a denial to the people who live here of their basic rights for businesses, property, quality of life, and rights cherished by Americans living in this nation.

 

Kalynda Tilges, Concerned Citizen:

I am the southern Nevada coordinator and nuclear issues coordinator for Citizen Alert.  I am also the grass-roots chairperson for the state of Nevada committee.  I oppose S.J.R. 4.  I agree with all opposing comments stated up to this point except the fact that Citizens Alert represents thousands of people in this state. 

 

You stated we lost the war in 1987.  I believe we lost a battle, but the war is still waging and S.J.R. 4 is you and your committee standing there waving a white flag of surrender.  The statements of Dr. Dyer appear to say this resolution is premature.  There seems to be a lack of knowledge on the history of Yucca Mountain and all of the procedures happening.  I would suggest you and the committee do more research before you start trying to pass resolutions like this.  Senate Joint Resolution 4 will not change the minds of Congress.  Perhaps efforts would be better directed at actually fighting this thing instead of caving in.

 

We do not need a majority in both houses of Congress.  We need only one house.  Nevada can prevail in the courts, in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing proceedings, and with the President, if he can be convinced this is not in the country’s best interest.  The nuclear industry people would like to trick this body into passing resolutions like this.  It helps weaken the state’s case.  This resolution also plays into the hands of the Yucca Mountain proponents who are trying to convince Nevada the dump is inevitable.  There are still plenty of fights to be won and we are working with organizations across the country on strategy to stop this on the grass-roots level.

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

If the President designates Yucca Mountain to get the waste and if the waste starts to ship here, would you rather have it by rail or by road?  You need to answer this question or you are not being true to yourself or the committee.

 

Ms. Tilges:

The waste will not come here; therefore, it is not a question I will answer. 

 

Jessica Hodge, Concerned Citizen:

I represent the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club.  We feel, representing our 4000 members in the state of Nevada, this resolution is inappropriate, untimely, and redundant.  The Governor already has this authority.  You would have the state take on this responsibility of the DOE, but it is not the right time in the process.  We want to show a united front. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

I am asking for the Governor to designate a rail line, paid for by the Nuclear Waste Policy Trust Fund, to protect the citizens of the state of Nevada.  I am asking only if this is designated as suitable.  If it does not happen, we do not need to ask for the railroad.  But if it does happen, and they designate Nevada as the site to store the nuclear waste, then we should be getting on with building a railroad, post haste.  If we do not, if we lose the court cases, we will have it rolling through our highways.  If you want to wait until the court cases are finalized, there will not be time to build the railroad. 

 

Ms. Hodge:

I think the federal government would give us time to build a railroad since we have had no other choices or options of recourse. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

You trust them a whole lot more than I do.

 

Marjorie Detraz, Concerned Citizen:

I live in Lincoln County.  Why do we not, in Nevada, support our Governor and our Nevada delegation?  Why do we not support our state Legislature?  Governor Miller, Governor Guinn, and the people of Nevada oppose Yucca Mountain.  But there are still people in Nevada telling us we have to take it.  No, we do not have to take it.  When they say not in my backyard, I say, not in my front yard, either. 

 

I have an article from the Las Vegas Sun (“Senators gear for next round of Yucca battles,” December 5, 1999, Las Vegas Sun) which says the biggest problem is what to do with the nuclear waste.  In this country it is a political problem, not a scientific problem, not an engineering problem, it is purely political.  The state Legislature ought to be doing something about this as representatives of the people.  We should not be giving them the idea that we are ready to give in. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Would it matter if every single one of us opposed Yucca Mountain?  Would it make a difference?  How many votes in Washington, D.C., would it change?  If it is designated suitable by a consortium of scientists, would you rather have the waste shipped here by rail or by road?

 

Ms. Detraz:

Our new President made the same promise then Vice President Al Gore did, this would be decided on science not politics.  I do not want it in Nevada.  Yucca Mountain is not safe. 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

Do you want us to wait until it is too late?  I want to prepare for it and protect you.

 

Ms. Detraz:

It is never too late and I will not give up hope.  Seventy-seven percent of the citizens oppose it and you should not be coming out with this idea.  I oppose this resolution and I do not want your protection.

 

Shirley Swafford, Concerned Citizen:

I would like to know who has the final say on the route that will be used? 

 

Chairman O'Donnell:

The Governor has the final say and this resolution urges the Governor to designate a railroad around the city. 

 

Chairman O’Donnell:

I will close the hearing on S.J.R. 4 and adjourn this meeting at 6:06 p.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Alice Nevin,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Chairman

 

 

DATE: