[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2112-H2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1300
                          DOE'S LITTLE SECRET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, we have assumed for some time that the 
Department of Energy has made an overwhelming effort to prove that 
their research on the Nation's spent nuclear fuel is based on sound 
science and safe for Americans. Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand before my 
colleagues today to ask that despite the DOE's claims that Yucca 
Mountain is a geologically safe place to store 77,000 tons of the 
Nation's nuclear waste, that we take a closer look at the truth behind 
these claims.

[[Page H2113]]

  Recently, Mr. Speaker, Nevadans have become aware of some very 
disturbing information about these DOE claims. In its final 
environmental impact statement, the DOE evaluated the handling, 
transporting and disposition of spent nuclear fuel and high level 
radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.
  Although 131 sites across this country contain this nuclear waste and 
although the waste at these sites require individual attention due to 
radioactivity dangers, the Department of Energy has entirely neglected 
to evaluate the effect of waste transportation of at least 54 different 
sites. Mr. Speaker, this negligence is simply unacceptable.
  In considering the dangers of hauling nuclear waste across the 
country, through our neighborhoods, near our schools and parks, it is 
obvious that the DOE should have investigated these important 
facilities. Most of these facilities are research reactor sites at 
major universities and significant commercial research and fuel 
fabrication plants. Shipping the high level radioactive waste from 
these facilities is a hazardous undertaking that cannot be ignored, and 
the DOE has done so.
  Similar movement of research reactive fuel has been explored in the 
past. In just one instance, after a mandatory preparation of an 
extensive report, several years of analysis, and two arduous legal 
challenges, a shipment of foreign research reactor fuel was transported 
to North Carolina.
  The question is, shall Americans stand by and wait for a mistake in 
shipping this hazardous research reactor fuel or will we demand that 
the DOE take into account these 54 sites before it presents our 
government with a proper environmental analysis?
  Clearly, the Department of Energy has altogether ignored a vast and 
critical component of its Yucca Mountain project.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans should be outraged at this negligence, and 
again, I ask that we take a closer look at the reports handed over to 
us by the DOE.
  Finding a solution to our Nation's nuclear waste problem should be a 
process of justice, sound science and integrity, not one of 
carelessness and political expediency.
  Mr. Speaker, the Yucca Mountain project is not an equitable solution. 
It is not a trustworthy solution or a suitable solution to our nuclear 
waste problem.
  I urge all my colleagues to make a responsible decision on this 
potentially devastating resolution tomorrow. Vote no on the Yucca 
Mountain project. Vote no tomorrow on House Joint Resolution 87.

                          ____________________