[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2610-S2611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Yucca Mountain
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong
opposition to the House of Representatives' effort to restart licensing
activities at Yucca Mountain and in particular the Nuclear Waste Policy
Amendments Act, which passed the House just a few hours ago.
This bill, which is a complete and total waste of taxpayer dollars,
is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate. Not only will I place a hold on
the bill now that it has passed the House, I will also object to the
motion to proceed to the bill. This vote today proves my point that I
am the only person in Washington, DC, standing between a pristine,
beautiful Nevada or a Nevada dripping with nuclear waste. As I have
said in the past, I will continue to serve as a roadblock to every
effort to make Nevada our Nation's nuclear waste dump.
Despite the House of Representatives' repeated attempts to revive a
failed project, I have been able to ensure that not a single dollar has
been appropriated to restart licensing activities at Yucca Mountain.
This vote is nothing but a failed exercise because as long as I am in
the Senate, Yucca Mountain is dead. It is as simple as that. As I have
previously said, under my watch, I will not let one more hard-earned
taxpayer dollar go toward the failed Yucca Mountain project. My State
refuses to serve as our Nation's nuclear waste dump. That is why I am
proud to say that because of my leadership, the Senate has repeatedly
refused to pass a law funding the high-level nuclear waste repository--
a position that was most recently confirmed in the most recent omnibus
spending measure.
Because of my current work as Nevada's senior Senator and my
bipartisan work with the former Senate majority leader, Yucca Mountain
remains dead. I repeat, it is simple as that. But despite Yucca's clear
and unquestionable death long ago, some of my friends on the other side
of the Capitol continue to waste their time attempting to bring back
life to this ill-conceived and fiscally irresponsible plan. Their
efforts keep alive a longstanding fight over States' rights and
distract us from the real task at hand, which is finding a viable,
long-term nuclear waste storage solution that meets the needs of all
Americans.
I will be the first person to recognize the important role nuclear
power plays in a stable and secure ``all of the above'' energy strategy
and that with nuclear energy comes the need to properly store spent
nuclear fuel, but I firmly believe that our Nation cannot progress
towards achieving viable and sustainable storage solutions for spent
nuclear fuel and defense high-level waste without first abandoning
Yucca Mountain.
I am not saying that we shouldn't come to the table to discuss our
Nation's nuclear waste storage needs. We should, and I would. But I
also believe States should have a say in the matter. That is why, in my
opinion, consent-based siting presents the only viable path forward on
this issue. Consent-based siting offers a means of addressing our
Nation's high-level nuclear waste problem while at the same time
respecting the sovereignty of States to object to becoming nuclear
waste dumps. The Yucca Mountain proposal, however, represents the exact
opposite of consent; it is a unilaterally imposed Federal mandate that
goes against the will of the people it directly affects.
My colleagues have heard me raise the question many times that I and
Nevadans are thinking: Why should a State without a single nuclear
powerplant of its own be forced against its will to house all of our
Nation's nuclear waste?
Let me repeat that. Why should a State without a single nuclear
powerplant of its own be forced against its will to house all of our
Nation's nuclear waste? This is a question that has never been
answered--not from the Presiding Officer's seat, not from the Speaker
of the House, nor from the author of this bill. And I think if we want
an intellectually honest answer, it would be that it shouldn't have to.
Beyond the violation of the State sovereignty and the disregard for
the will of the local population, the Yucca Mountain proposal poses
significant health and safety risks and potentially catastrophic
financial risks that must be addressed before, not after, the proposal
moves forward, should it move forward at all.
What are these risks? Well, for one, Yucca Mountain is located just
90 miles from the world's premier tourist and convention and
entertainment destination of Las Vegas, NV. Last year, Las Vegas
welcomed nearly 43 million visitors. Over the past decade, the greater
Las Vegas area has been one of the fastest growing in the United
States, with a population that now exceeds 2.1 million people,
according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau numbers. Any issues with the
transportation of nuclear waste to that site or issues with storage
there would bring devastating consequences to the Las Vegas, NV, and
national economies--issues that would inevitably result from shipping
9,500 rail casks in 2,800 trains and 2,650 trucks hauling 1 cask each
to Yucca Mountain over the next 50 years. These shipments would use
22,000 miles of railways and 7,000 miles of highways and cross over 44
States.
To date, however, Nevadans have not received sufficient assurance
from the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that
their concerns about these risks will receive the procedural due
process and thoughtful consideration they are owed under existing law.
In fact, in my recent correspondence with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, I continue to stress to the Commission the importance of
procedural safeguards, such as local hearings and local adjudication,
to ensure that parties directly affected by the proposal have the
opportunity to air their concerns and have them considered in an open
and reasonably close forum.
It is because of these and other unresolved concerns that I continue
to stand with the State of Nevada in its strong opposition to
restarting licensing activities at the Yucca Mountain repository.
Rather than forcing the State of Nevada to accept nuclear waste at a
scientifically unsound site, taxpayer dollars would be better spent
identifying viable alternatives for the long-term storage of nuclear
waste in areas that are willing to house it. Finding alternatives is
the commonsense path forward, as well as the fiscally responsible
decision.
The Federal Government should not waste another taxpayer dollar on
Yucca Mountain--waste that already amounts to nearly $15 billion.
According to Department of Energy estimates, an additional $82 billion
would be needed to license, construct, and operate Yucca Mountain
through closure, bringing the total system life cycle cost for the
project to around $100 billion--an amount that would be probably 15 to
20 percent higher in today's dollars.
[[Page S2611]]
So it is clear that instead of throwing more taxpayer dollars at a
failed proposal, which is exactly what the House of Representatives'
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act does, we should be working on a
real, long-term solution rooted in consent-based siting.
With that, I urge my colleagues, as we continue the budget and
appropriations process for the 2019 fiscal year, to focus on further
implementation of the Department of Energy's consent-based siting
process.
I stand ready to partner with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle on this issue, and I am confident that together we can find a
solution to this problem once and for all.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.