Today we are going to hear from industry and advocacy groups about the issues with the NRC and about plans for new nuclear power plants.
I can't imagine having this discussion without raising the specter of dealing with the pollution produced by the industry. This is pollution that we must monitor not for 10, not for 100 but for more than 100,000 years.
As you all know, the state of Nevada has been chosen as the only site studied in the nation for a proposed underground nuclear waste storage facility.
But perhaps you didn't know that Yucca Mountain is only 90 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada's largest and one of America's fastest growing cities. In addition to being home to more than 1.3 million Nevadans, Las Vegas and its neighboring communities draw more than 30 million visitors each year.
The Department of Energy is in the process of scientific studies into Yucca Mountain. I am aware that there is tremendous pressure being applied by the nuclear industry to make the science fit the site.
But Yucca Mountain just is not the right answer.
What does all this have to do with today's hearing? The answer is simple: before we consider rushing forward to build new nuclear power plants we need to address the nuclear waste question in a meaningful way.
Not doing so would be like Henry Ford designing and building every part of the model T except the exhaust. No one would consider mass producing such a defective car.
We can choose to invest in the truly sustainable generating sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, efficiency and conservation:
Well sited wind farms generate energy at rates of less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour and will soon get to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour That's competitive with the cheapest fossil fuels and nuclear power -- without the harmful pollution.
A 10,000 square mile region of Nevada could supply our nation's entire electricity needs with existing solar technology. With the right investments this technology will only improve.
Energy efficiency continues to save energy at less than a few cents per kilowatt-hour
We can choose to end the tremendous government subsidies of the nuclear power industry:
Nuclear power generation is a mature industry that has outgrown the billion dollar a year Price-Anderson subsidy
We should allow the market to decide if spending $2000-3000 for every kilowatt of nuclear power is the right kind of investment to make.
I don't think the market will be willing to take that kind of financial risk
Finally, I would like to raise some specific issues with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
First, I am concerned by the pressure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to place on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)over the Yucca Mountain radiation standard.
According to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, the EPA has the legal responsibility to set this standard.
In October of last year, Vice-President Cheney visited Reno, NV and assured the residents of my home state that the EPA would be the lead agency on this standard. They also indicated that they would support a rigorous standard from the EPA which would fully protect families in Nevada.
The residents of Nevada deserve to have vital groundwater resources that are as safe as anywhere else in the country.
Second, I have concerns about the recent efforts to eliminate restrictions on foreign ownership of nuclear plants. We don't allow foreign control of airplane manufacturers, why should we allow foreign control of our nuclear power industry?
Today, nuclear power plants are bought and sold like used cars.
We already have several 50-50 partnerships between U.S. and foreign firms, and Westinghouse a major supplier of maintenance, parts and services for the industry -- is now a wholly owned subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.
This Administration talks about the need to decrease foreign control of our domestic energy market. We should start by ensuring domestic ownership of the nuclear power industry.
Third, I am concerned with the erosion of public participation in the licensing of new plants and the re-licensing of existing ones.
The NRC has chosen to keep the formal hearing process for the licensing proceedings related to Yucca Mountain. But where is this same protection for licensing and re-licensing?
If the industry truly has a safe, efficient, and reliable product they should not be concerned with holding formal hearings to discuss the extension of the licenses.
It is time to bring some rational thought to the debate over nuclear power.
No longer should we discuss the virtues of nuclear power without addressing the vices of nuclear pollution.
No longer should we use government subsidy to prevent the extinction of this dinosaur of an industry.
We have an obligation to our children to ensure that our short-term energy needs are not met with long-term environmental neglect.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on these important issues.