[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.