[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 36 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[House]
[Page H1383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. I was in the doctor's office a moment ago, and I had the
opportunity to be watching C-SPAN and listen to what the gentleman from
Kentucky said about Yucca Mountain. I just thought I better come down
here and set the record straight, because obviously my esteemed
colleague from Kentucky doesn't know the Yucca Mountain issue very
well. So with this 5 minutes I would like to help enlighten him and the
rest of my colleagues.
The State of Nevada is opposed to storing this Nation's nuclear waste
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. President Obama pulled the plug because, and
only because there is no scientific evidence, and there never has been,
that Yucca Mountain can safely store thousands and thousands of tons of
toxic radioactive nuclear waste within the Yucca Mountain complex. And
let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
At Yucca Mountain we have discovered there are groundwater issues,
seismic activity, volcanic activity. To refresh everybody's memory, the
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, had a radiation standard of
10,000 years, where they wanted to be able to safely store this
Nation's nuclear waste, thousands and thousands of tons of radioactive
material, for 10,000 years.
{time} 1230
The U.S. Court of Appeals overthrew that radiation standard, and let
me share with you why: Because they determined, based on scientific
evidence, that the radiation standard should be 300,000 years because
that is when radiation reaches its peak. So the 10,000-year radiation
standard was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals, and they could
never figure out how to come up with a radiation standard that tracks
with the scientific evidence.
There is no way to safely transport radioactive nuclear waste across
43 States in order to be buried in a hole in the Nevada desert where, I
remind you, we have groundwater problems, seismic activity, and
volcanic activity. There are no canisters that currently exist--they do
not exist--that can safely transport and store nuclear waste; not in
Yucca Mountain, not anywhere.
We had better figure out as a Nation, before we start building more
nuclear power plants that create more nuclear waste, what we are going
to do with the by-product of nuclear energy, which is the nuclear
waste.
This country has been single focused, and the people of Nevada have
said year after year, decade after decade, we are not the answer. We
don't want to be this Nation's garbage dump for this Nation's nuclear
waste.
We do not produce one nanogram, not one speck of energy using nuclear
in the State of Nevada, so why should we be accepting everybody's
nuclear waste. If you have a nuclear power plant in your district, in
your State, then that is fine. You figure out what you are going to do
with the nuclear waste that is produced by creating nuclear energy.
The idea that Nevada should be the repository, and some people call
it the suppository, for nuclear waste in this country is an absolute
absurdity. We will fight this.
We thank the President of the United States for standing with the
people of the State of Nevada. We do not want the nuclear waste. It is
dangerous, and we join with everyone else in trying to come up with a
solution. But this myth that we are going to have one repository
instead of 43 or 33 or however many nuclear power plants we have in
this country is preposterous, because these power plants are going to
keep creating nuclear waste. So we are not eliminating nuclear dump
sites; we are creating an extra one. Can't do it. Shouldn't do it.
Won't do it.
I urge my colleagues to join with me and come up with a suitable
method of dealing with our nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain just is not
that answer, and it never will be.
____________________