[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 11 (Thursday, January 24, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S285-S286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Barrasso, 
        Mr. Bond, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2551. A bill to provide for the safe development of a repository 
at the Yucca Mountain site in the State of Nevada, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.
  I have said many times on this Senate floor that we do have a crisis 
in energy and that we need all of the following: We need nuclear 
energy, but we also need clean coal technology, we need oil and gas, we 
need renewables. We need all of the above. I feel very strongly about 
this, and I know there is a disagreement on that issue, even within our 
committee. But I am concerned about the continued delays in opening our 
Nation's repository at Yucca Mountain, that it would hinder the 
resurgence of nuclear energy in the United States. It seems as though 
right now we are making a major breakthrough. People who were objecting 
to nuclear energy just a few years ago are now realizing that it is 
clean, it is safe, it is abundant. Not that I use France as our model 
very often, but in this case, they are between 80 and 90 percent 
nuclear, and they have done the right thing.
  A bit of history on this. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 
established a program to locate and develop a repository for nuclear 
waste, including both Defense waste, a legacy from the Cold War, and 
civilian spent fuel. In 2002, after 20 years of research, the President 
recommended to the Congress that Yucca Mountain should be developed as 
the repository. The State of Nevada objected. I wasn't surprised to see 
that happen, and it did. It certainly is their right to do so under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, Congress passed a joint resolution 
affirming or reaffirming the administration's recommendation of Yucca 
Mountain with strong bipartisan majorities in both Houses.
  The location has been decided. The debate is no longer in existence 
of whether a repository should be built at Yucca Mountain. That 
decision was made in 2002. The task that remains is to develop a 
repository that protects public health and safety and the environment, 
a permanent solution for our Nation's nuclear waste. It is high time we 
accomplish these tasks now. This is very serious. We passed laws and 
resolutions to do it. We have collected over $27 billion--that is with 
a ``b''--$27 billion for electricity from consumers to pay for it. The 
courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that we have the obligation--not 
the legal right to do it, the legal obligation.
  Now, I am frustrated that the Department of Energy is 20 years behind 
schedule. However, I am pleased that DOE appears to have made 
significant progress in the past few years and will hopefully file a 
license application this year, despite the persistent assault on 
program funding.
  I understand that opposition to Yucca Mountain remains, advocating 
that we abandon it in favor of interim storage. There have been many 
proposals on interim storage, and I expect there will be more in the 
future, but we have interim storage right now at 121 locations in 39 
States. Make no mistake, interim storage is a temporary fix. It forces 
future generations to solve a problem that we ought to be resolving 
today. It is time to move forward with a permanent solution at Yucca 
Mountain.
  I have visited the site. I have a question for those who would want 
to abandon Yucca Mountain: If you can't build a repository in the 
middle of a mountain in the middle of a desert, where should it be?
  Let's think about this for a minute. The logical first step to 
finding a new repository site is to begin by reevaluating sites that 
have been considered before. I have a map--which is not here, but it 
will be here before I finish talking--showing the 37 States that DOE 
and its predecessor, the Energy Research Development Administration, 
have evaluated in the past based on the presence of favorable geologic 
formations. Those States are Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, and it goes on and on, including my State of 
Oklahoma--37 of the 50 States. Now, 37 States have been considered as 
possible candidates for developing a repository. Does it really make 
sense to abandon a site where we have already invested 25 years and $8 
billion before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission even considers it, 
only to turn around and start from scratch, reevaluating sites in 37 
States? I don't think so.
  As the generation that has benefited from the use of nuclear energy 
and the resulting spent fuel, I believe it is incumbent upon us to 
manage spent fuel in a manner that is fair to current generations and 
generations to come, and the bill I am introducing now will do just 
that.
  DOE has indicated there are legislative provisions they need to 
complete the licensing process and begin construction of the repository 
our electricity consumers have paid some $27 billion for already. 
Senators Domenici and Craig introduced their NU-WAY bill, S. 37, which 
includes those provisions within the jurisdiction of Environment and 
Public Works. My bill includes the remaining DOE provisions that are 
within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
My bill goes beyond that. My bill will incorporate a flexible framework 
for future generations to apply their knowledge and innovations to 
improve the repository.
  The task at hand is to develop a safe repository using state-of-the-
art technology and cutting-edge science. The trouble is technology that 
is state of the art now won't be 50 years from now, much less 100 years 
from now. When you are making decisions on how to develop a facility 
that will be safe for up to a million years, we should not limit 
ourselves to science and technology that is available today. We should 
establish a flexible framework that incorporates technological advances 
into the facility design over time, one that allows our grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren to improve on the project we have started. In 
other words, we know that even though we are using the million-year 
benchmark, things are going to happen next year and the year after and 
the year after where we can have dramatic improvements. But the one 
thing we have to do is make the decision today--or keep the decision 
that has already been made.
  Several international bodies, including the National Academy of 
Sciences and the International Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, have advocated repository 
development in stages that will incorporate technological advances over 
time--just what

[[Page S286]]

we are talking about. The reformed licensing process in this bill 
integrates that concept into the current licensing process. My bill 
reforms the licensing process for authorizing construction, operation, 
and closure of the repository.
  I have to say we have come a long way already on this. When I became 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air within this committee, we had 
not had an oversight committee hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for 12 years. I don't care what the bureaucracy is, you have 
to have oversight. Well, we have come a long way.

  The threshold for approval of construction of a repository is based 
on a determination that the facility could be safely operated for 300 
years. During this time, a long-term science and technology program 
will be established to monitor and analyze the repository's performance 
and to conduct research into technologies that would improve the 
facility. The repository license will be amended every 50 years at a 
minimum to incorporate these improvements. During this phase, waste 
would remain retrievable so that future generations may recover 
valuable material or upgrade disposal systems, for example.
  When the DOE applies to permanently close the repository, it must 
then demonstrate compliance with EPA's radiation standard before 
ceasing operations at the site. Until then, the facility will be 
subject to the strict NRC regulation and oversight as an operating 
facility.
  Today, this program has been litigated into a corner. After several 
lawsuits, the EPA has responded by drafting a radiation standard for 1 
million years. That is right, based on what we know today, DOE must 
prove a reasonable expectation that Yucca Mountain will be safe for 1 
million years before DOE can even begin building a repository. This is 
a ridiculous and arrogant requirement that assumes we know right now 
all that will ever be known about the management of spent nuclear fuel 
and its impact on public health and safety. That compliance decision 
only makes sense when DOE decides to close the repository and cease 
operations. Until that time, repository enhancements reflecting 300 
years of scientific innovation will improve its protection of public 
health and safety and, I might add, the environment.
  Now, my approach is not about kicking the can down the road and 
forcing future generations to solve the problem. That is what concerns 
me about a lot of the things we do around here. My wife and I have 20 
kids and grandkids, and they are the ones who are going to be doing a 
lot of the things we should be doing today. My approach is about 
meeting a legal and moral obligation to build the best facility we can 
now, laying a solid foundation for future generations to improve it 
based on what they learn.
  I am confident we can build a repository that will protect public 
health and safety and the environment, but I am equally confident that 
50 years from now our grandchildren could build a better one. Fifty 
years from now, they will have learned a lot about the actual 
performance of repositories; something we can only predict right now, 
they will know by that time. Fifty years from now, the waste placed in 
the repository may require isolation for a few hundred years instead of 
a million.
  Lastly, my bill includes provisions necessary to support new nuclear 
plant construction. Before receiving a license, nuclear plants must 
meet two requirements. The first is that companies must sign a contract 
with DOE to provide for the disposal of spent fuel. My bill modifies 
those provisions in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to make them current. 
The second is known as waste confidence. Nuclear plants must 
demonstrate there is confidence that the spent fuel will be managed and 
disposed of in a manner that protects health and safety. My bill 
clarifies that the repository program meets this requirement for 
disposal.
  So when a society takes on the task of building a complex, first-of-
a-kind facility envisioned to remain robust for a million years, it 
immediately raises questions about generational equity. As Senators, we 
must balance fairness to the future generations that haven't been born 
yet with fairness to the generations we currently represent. Finding 
that balance must be based on several principles, including protecting 
the health and safety of current generations; protecting the health and 
safety of future generations; minimizing the impact on the environment; 
meeting the need for reliable, cost-effective energy; meeting legal 
obligations; minimizing taxpayer liability; and the costs are covered 
by those who benefit from the waste. My bill adheres to these 
principles and strikes that balance.
  Rumors of Yucca Mountain's demise have been highly exaggerated. It is 
time we focus on developing the safest state-of-the-art repository we 
can, one step at a time. We owe it to our generation and to the 
generations that follow.
  I have to say, regarding all of the emphasis recently on the concern 
we have for the environment, nothing is cleaner, nothing has been shown 
better for the environment than this type of energy, which we have to 
have in our mix.
                                 ______