[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 26 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H809-H810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I come back to the floor again this week to
continue to talk about high-level nuclear waste and its location around
the country.
This week really saddens me because, in the weeks past when I've
identified the U.S. Senators from the appropriate States, usually I
would have more in support of moving their high-level nuclear waste out
of their State than who wants to vote to keep it in their State. As I
go to Connecticut today and the States surrounding Connecticut, it is
really amazing how many Senators have gone on record to say, No, it is
okay; we will just keep this nuclear waste in our State for 15, 20, 25
more years.
With that, let's look at the options we have here.
The nuclear power plant that I'm addressing today is called
Millstone. It is in Connecticut. I always like to compare it to where
the high-level nuclear waste should be, which is underneath a mountain,
in a desert in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain, where, in 1987, we passed
into law and said Yucca Mountain will be the location for our high-
level nuclear waste. It is the law of the land.
How have we done? How much nuclear waste is at Yucca Mountain, this
mountain in the desert? We don't have any. We've already spent $15
billion. The waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground. The waste
would be stored 1,000 feet above the water table. The waste would be
100 miles from the nearest body of water, which would be the Colorado
River.
{time} 1040
Well, let's compare it to Millstone in Connecticut. Right now,
Millstone has 1,350 million tons of uranium spent nuclear fuel on site.
The waste is stored in pools and in dry casts. The waste is 15 to 20
feet from the water table. It is on Niantic Bay, just off Long Island
Sound. Here's a picture. Here's the nuclear power plant; here's the
bay. It's right next to the water. And without moving forward on Yucca
Mountain, this waste will continue to be stored there 15, 20, 25 more
years.
So let's look at the Senators from the surrounding States that border
this body of water. We have Senator Blumenthal--new. He said in a
campaign interview that he opposed Senator Reid's fight to prevent
Yucca Mountain, so we put him in the ``yes'' column. Senator Lieberman
voted ``no'' in 2002, so we put him in the ``no'' column. Senator
Lautenberg from New Jersey voted ``no'' on the Senate Appropriations
Committee amendment to restore funding, so we put him in the ``no''
column. Senator Menendez from New Jersey has been a vocal critic, and
so he's in the ``no'' column. Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator from New
York, we have her as undecided. We're kind of waiting for her to take a
position. Part of this debate is to at least get Senators on the record
somehow to see where they will be on this position.
Senator Schumer--obviously fairly close to Connecticut and New York
City--he had voted ``no'' in '02. Senator Jack Reed--actually a pretty
good friend of mine--from Rhode Island voted ``no'' in 2002. Senator
Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, we have as really
``undecided.'' Two ``undecided,'' a whole bunch of ``nays,'' and one
``yes.''
So how does that do for our totality of where Senators are at this
time based upon the information we have? Well, we have 41 Senators who
say we need to move high-level nuclear waste out of our State to a
desert underneath a mountain. We have 14 that we really have no public
record on. We'd like to see the Senate sometime take a vote and figure
out where they might be. And we have 15 ``nays.''
[[Page H810]]
Now, why is this important? The Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982
said: Let's find a single repository. The Blue Ribbon Commission, which
testified before my committee just last week, said: We need a long-term
geological repository. As I quoted in a story yesterday, Brent
Scowcroft, the cochair, said: We're not excluding Yucca Mountain, but
we have so much nuclear waste now that we're going to have to find a
second location.
So you can continue your fight on Yucca Mountain, but the Blue Ribbon
Commission said we need a long-term geological storage centralized.
We're just saying we already have one. If we're going to need a second
one, then we better start that process of looking at a second one, but
we ought to start filling up the first one.
We spent $15 billion. And why aren't we moving forward? Well, we have
the majority leader of the Senate who says no. In fact, my colleague,
Mr. Clyburn, was quoted in a paper as saying: As long as Harry Reid is
alive, Yucca is dead.
____________________