[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3456-3458]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             YUCCA MOUNTAIN

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Department of 
Energy submitted a motion to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
withdraw its license application to construct a spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste repository at

[[Page 3457]]

Yucca Mountain. What was the latest rationale for this? Simply because 
we need it too much.
  That might seem like creative interpretation on my part, but just 
last week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu noted that due to the revival 
of the nuclear industry, Yucca Mountain's repository would hit its 
statutory capacity limit in the next several decades and would not meet 
future industry needs. Instead of moving forward with a permanent 
repository that billions of dollars have already been spent on and 
simply expanding the arbitrary limit the law puts on the size of the 
repository, spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors will be 
stored onsite at over 100 locations across the country for at least the 
next several decades.
  If we do have the nuclear revival that many of us believe is needed 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet our energy needs, the 
number of onsite storage locations across the country will only 
increase.
  Not only is the Department of Energy seeking to withdraw its license 
application--and I am not absolutely convinced they have the authority 
to do so--they are seeking to withdraw it ``with prejudice,'' making it 
very difficult, if not impossible, to resurrect Yucca Mountain as a 
possible option for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste, regardless of what future scientific and engineering advances 
may offer and regardless of what the administration's blue ribbon panel 
that is directed to consider all of the options may conclude.
  In fact, the Department of Energy argues in its motion that 
``scientific and engineering knowledge on issues relevant to 
disposition of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel has advanced 
dramatically over the 20 years since the Yucca Mountain project was 
initiated.''
  Apparently, the Department is also arguing that scientific and 
engineering knowledge on the same issues will not advance any further 
over the next several decades to address issues with the Yucca Mountain 
site.
  Setting the legal issues aside surrounding the Department's motion to 
withdraw, I wish to focus for a moment on what stopping work on the 
Yucca Mountain site will actually cost the American taxpayers.
  Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government 
has a contractual obligation to collect spent nuclear fuel from 
individual nuclear powerplants starting in 1998. The government has 
clearly missed on that deadline.
  According to the Department of Justice, the Federal Government has so 
far paid $565 million in settlement costs for breaching this contract 
with the utilities. I say ``so far'' because the ultimate cost to the 
American taxpayer we know is going to be much higher.
  Utility companies have filed 71 cases in Federal court alleging the 
Department of Energy's delay in taking title to spent nuclear fuel is a 
breach of contract. Of those 71 lawsuits, 10 have now been settled, 6 
were withdrawn, and 4 were fully litigated, resulting in the $565 
million in payments. Of the 51 cases that are outstanding, then, the 
judgment has been entered in 13 of those cases, putting government 
liability, so far--so far--for commercial spent nuclear fuel stored 
onsite between 1998 and 2007 at a cost of $1.3 billion. And there 
remain another 38 cases for judgment to be entered on, so the amount of 
the liability for that timeframe is likely to increase significantly in 
the future. Keep in mind, this number does not take in account the 
level of liability for the increasing amount of spent nuclear fuel 
stored onsite from 2008 until the date when a permanent repository is 
opened, whenever that might be, nor do the costs include the $24 
million in attorney costs, $91 million in expert funds, $39 million in 
litigation support costs, or the thousands of hours the DOE and the NRC 
employees have already expended on this effort.
  The Department of Energy estimates that the potential liability of 
the Federal Government to utilities will be $12.3 billion--if the 
government starts taking title to the spent fuel by 2020, just 10 years 
from now. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, 
utility industry reports estimate that the claims will total $50 
billion. And both of these estimates were developed before the 
administration took steps to withdraw the Yucca application. So we have 
liability estimates of between $12 billion and $50 billion in taxpayer 
money--if a repository is opened and accepting spent fuels in the next 
10 years. Keep in mind, it took us almost 30 years to get this far on 
Yucca Mountain. With the current administration shutting down all work 
on Yucca and beginning the search for a solution anew, it seems 
increasingly likely that the costs will greatly exceed the $50 billion 
estimate.
  At a time when we are already racking up trillions of dollars in debt 
for future generations, the administration has freely chosen--freely 
chosen--to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens 
of billions of dollars by withdrawing the Yucca Mountain repository 
license application because, in the words of Secretary Chu, ``the 
statutory limit of Yucca Mountain would have been used up in the next 
several decades.''
  So all Americans are on the hook for tens of billions of dollars 
because the Federal Government is in breach of its contract to take 
title to spent nuclear fuel. But it gets even better for those 
Americans whose utility gets some of its electricity from nuclear power 
plants: You get to pay twice. In return for the Federal Government 
taking title to commercial spent nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act established a nuclear waste fund to provide for the construction of 
a spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository. 
Utilities that operate under nuclear power reactors are charged a fee 
by the Secretary of Energy, and that fee is then deposited into the 
waste fund. The cost of that fee is passed on from the utility to the 
consumer. The utilities, and then hence their customers, contribute 
between $750 million and $800 million into the waste fund each year.
  As of September 30, 2009, payments and interest credited to the fund 
totaled just over $30 billion. That is a substantial amount of money. 
However, there are restrictions on what those funds can be used for. 
Funds from the nuclear waste fund may only be expended for the 
construction of a facility expressly authorized by the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act or subsequent legislation. The only facility that meets this 
description is Yucca Mountain. Yet the Obama administration has shut 
down work on Yucca and filed a motion to withdraw its license 
application. So the natural question is, What happens to the money in 
the nuclear waste fund since it can't be spent on anything other than 
the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository? Well, the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act directs the Secretary of Energy to adjust the fee paid 
by the utilities if the amount collected is insufficient or in excess 
of the amount needed to meet the cost of construction of the 
repository. It is hard to see how the $24 billion balance in the fund 
is not sufficient to pay for work on a facility where no more work will 
ever occur.
  Utilities have been suggesting that the fee be dispensed with, but 
Secretary Chu said that the collection will continue. So some 
ratepayers will continue to pay a higher electricity bill to contribute 
to a fund that no longer serves a purpose, at least until the courts 
should rule otherwise. If--or perhaps when--the courts order the 
reduction of the fee and the refund of the balances already paid into 
the fund, you can add the loss of over $750 million in income to the 
Federal Government per year, as well as the refund of the $30 billion 
already collected, to the taxpayers' debt.
  Mr. President, I have focused on the impact stopping work at Yucca 
Mountain will have on the commercial operations and the individual 
taxpayer, but the license application withdrawal will also impact those 
13 States that host Federal sites that hold high-level radioactive 
waste from the production of nuclear weapons dating back to the 
Manhattan Project. These are, most notably, Hanford, WA; Savannah 
River,

[[Page 3458]]

SC; and the National Engineering and Environmental Lab in Idaho. Just 
as utilities have sued the Federal Government for breach of contract, 
the decision to terminate Yucca should open the door to a lawsuit from 
a State such as Idaho, which has a court-approved agreement with the 
Department of Energy to remove nuclear waste from the State by the year 
2035.
  I am also concerned that in the administration's haste to suspend the 
work on Yucca Mountain, valuable scientific data will be lost--for 
example, as the Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force noted, long-term 
corrosion samples containing decades of information that is 
irreplaceable.
  To quote the task force, they say:

       Scientific information developed at considerable cost in 
     the Yucca Mountain program should be preserved to assist in 
     future repository development, wherever that may be.

  I call upon the administration to preserve the data it has collected 
so far. I support moving forward with the Yucca Mountain license 
application, but if the motion to withdraw the application is 
successful, the knowledge and data received so far in the process will 
be valuable for future repository siting needs.
  Mr. President, taxpayers are on the hook for tens of billions of 
dollars. Some are paying twice for a repository that is being taken off 
the table. States are left with Federal holding sites that contain 
high-level radioactive waste. Valuable scientific data is at risk of 
being lost forever. And all the administration can offer in return is a 
2-year delay while a panel studies the issue and offers a report.
  It is encouraging to hear the administration voice its support for 
the development of additional nuclear power and back those words with a 
request for greater loan guarantee funding. That is good. But in order 
to have support for new nuclear at a national level, there must be 
support among the communities which host existing nuclear powerplants. 
I am increasingly concerned that until we can resolve what to do with 
the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, local support for nuclear will 
erode as questions about how long the spent fuel will be stored onsite 
persist.
  With the withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain license application, we are 
essentially back to square one, and the American taxpayer will continue 
to pay the cost--without receiving any answers.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, am I correct that, procedurally, I am 
speaking in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________